On Nov 28, 2007 6:16 PM, Laurent Deniau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't see how it could be one page of C unless the page is 10 lines
long ;-) The following code is the direct translation of your Haskell
code (except that it prints the result instead of building a list).
a+, ld.
#include
On 9/27/07, ok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(What the heck _is_ Tangut, anyway?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangut_language
Juanma
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:57:22 +0200, Juanma Barranquero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data Accum s a = Ac [s] a
instance Monad (Accum s) where
return x = Ac [] x
Ac s1 x = f = let Ac s2 y = f x in Ac (s1++s2) y
output :: a - Accum a ()
output x = Ac [x] ()
After trying this one
I have an extremely-newbie question about monads and how to interpret
the monadic laws; I asked that same question yesterday on IRC and the
answers were interesting but non-conclusive (to me anyway).
I'm trying to learn monads by reading All About Monads, version 1.0.2.
I though of defining a
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:22:13 +0200
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you discovered, there is no meaningful count of operations. If an
operation doesn't do anything, do you count it?
It's not about counting the operations (that's just an example), but
accumulating any kind
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:16:13 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Monad class is just called Monad because it is intended
to cover a monad. But it doesn't ensure the laws. That is your
sole responsibility.
Yeah, I know. But it's difficult to ensure I'm satisfying the laws when
I'm not entirely
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:30:54 +0100
Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Observational equivalence.
For monads like list and maybe, this boils down to the normal equality because
the standard equality on these types is exactly observational equality.
For monads like IO, you can't define
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:27:29 +0200
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Accumulating state is fine. These definitions don't accumulate state:
'return' should yield a neutral state, and the above = ignores the
state of the lhs.
You're right.
data Accum s a = Ac [s] a
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:09:11 +0100, Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you should not interpret the '==' in the monad law as requiring you to
define an Eq instance.
If you do define an Eq instance, it ought to be reflexive, symmetric and
transitive (i.e., an equivalence) if you want
Extremely-newbie questions:
Is there any way to know if a list is finite or infinite, other than
doing:
length l
and waiting forever? :)
I ask because I was learning Haskell by writing some pretty naive
implementation of surreal numbers, where I used lists for left and right
surreal sets,
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:53:12 -0400, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Haskell 98, no. With a slightly impure extension (observable
sharing) sometimes but in general, no.
Interesting.
just use a data structure that says, an
infinity of x. The simplest thing I would think of is to
11 matches
Mail list logo
