Hi,
Don asked:
Are we likely to see the couchdb bindings released as a standalone
library for the wider community?
Let me explain a little bit why the CouchDB module appears in the Yhc repo.
As the next stage of the Yhc/Javascript project, I am trying to set up
a web service where people
On Jan 5, 2008 12:37 AM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most notable change is the instance IsString for strict and
lazy bytestrings, enabling bytestrings to be written as direct string
literals, without needing 'pack'.
That is, the following is valid:
import
dave:
On Jan 5, 2008 12:37 AM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most notable change is the instance IsString for strict and
lazy bytestrings, enabling bytestrings to be written as direct string
literals, without needing 'pack'.
That is, the following is
Achim Schneider wrote:
...is a paper about automatic specialisation of functions by unboxing
arguments, one could say. I'm only on page 6, but already survived the
first formalisms, which is bound to mean that the rest of the paper is
likewise accessible, as hinted on at ltu.
Isaac Dupree wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/wrapper.pdf
on page 6, stronger vs weaker seemed backwards to me... isn't (wrap ◦
unwrap = idA) a stronger condition than (wrap ◦ unwrap ◦ body = body),
because it tells you more, and is true in fewer cases? (which is
/~dons/code/hwn/
203. http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
205. http://planet.haskell.org/
207. http://haskell.org/
208. http://code.haskell.org/~dons/code/hwn/archives/20080105.pdf
209. http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/HWN
210. http://code.haskell.org/~dons/code/hwn
On 2008-01-04 0:23, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello C.M.Brown,
Thursday, January 3, 2008, 10:46:54 PM, you wrote:
i don't use
type signatures at all - this creates some problems when i wrote large
portion of code and try to make it compile, but nothing more
I believe type signatures are the
Jonathan Cast wrote:
The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of
Haskell types are CPPOs.
So:
(1) Must be monotone
(2) Must be continuous
(Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting
category substantially).
I wrote:
I'm not convinced that the category
On 4 Jan 2008, at 2:00 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:
You may be right...but learning is not an atomic thingwherever I
start I will get strange things happening.
The best place to start learning Haskell is with the simplest type
features, not the most complicated. And it's the simplest
On 5 Jan 2008, at 6:03 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Jonathan Cast wrote:
The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of
Haskell types are CPPOs.
So:
(1) Must be monotone
(2) Must be continuous
(Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting
category substantially).
10 matches
Mail list logo
