Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
It seems to become a FAQ. I think all DSLs suffer from the same problems:
sharing and recursion. I've used wrappers for CSound, SuperCollider,
MetaPost, they all have these problems.
What
Hi!
Emacs haskell-mode has haskell-hoogle function to search Haskell API,
but it, unfortunately, does not work with gtk2hs API which can be
accessed via web at http://haskell.org/hoogle/?package=gtk
Any plan to integrate Gtk2Hs so it becomes accessible via haskell-hoogle
function?
Sincerely,
Hi all,
I'd like to announce the FP-SYD, the Sydney (Australia) Functional
Programming group. The intro page is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/fp-syd
To subscribe to the mailing list (mainly for meeting organisation,
meeting announcements, and Sydney job offers) either go to the URL
Tom Hawkins wrote:
] My DSLs invariably define a datatype to capture expressions; something
] like this:
]
] data Expression
] = Add Expression Expression
] | Sub Expression Expression
] | Variable String
] | Constant Int
] deriving Eq
] The problem comes when I want to generate
On 2/12/08, Galchin Vasili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
http://cvs.haskell.org/Hugs/pages/libraries/base/Foreign-C-Types.html ..
I want to look at the actual code for these C types so that I can see how
the instances of Storable for each type are coded so e.g. I can see how
On Feb 13, 2008 9:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The approach is based on the final tagless representation. Here is our
DSL:
class Exp repr where
constant :: Int - repr Int
variable :: String - repr Int
add :: repr Int - repr Int - repr Int
sub :: repr Int - repr Int -
I have found that ghc has adopted the existential data constructors. Because it
was first time I have heard this term I have found some articles about it. The
less complex for me was the following explanation
data Worker x y = Worker {buffer :: b, input :: x, output :: y}
This is wrong in
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Simeon Mattes wrote:
I have found that ghc has adopted the existential data constructors. Because
it
was first time I have heard this term I have found some articles about it. The
less complex for me was the following explanation
data Worker x y = Worker {buffer :: b,
A little while ago, I needed bindings for creating and accessing a
pseudo-terminal device. Since I couldn't find any in the unix package,
I wrote my own.
Later, I found out that unix-2.2.0.0 does indeed contain
pseudo-terminal bindings, but unfortunately it seems to be
incompatible with my
Simeon Mattes wrote:
I have found that ghc has adopted the existential data constructors. Because it
was first time I have heard this term I have found some articles about it. The
less complex for me was the following explanation
data Worker x y = Worker {buffer :: b, input :: x, output :: y}
Hello
I remember there was a problem with haskell wiki pages not being indexed
and searched.
Now it seems to work perfectly. Actually typing 'monomorphism
restriction' in google I see the appropriate wiki page as the first result.
I must have missed the moment when it was fixed. Just
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Hello
I remember there was a problem with haskell wiki pages not being indexed
and searched.
Now it seems to work perfectly. Actually typing 'monomorphism
restriction' in google I see the appropriate wiki page as the first result.
I must have missed the moment when
Hi Oleg,
it's not immediately clear (to me at least) how efficient your method
will be in practice. Any method based on common sub-expression
elimination surely must inspect every node in the flattened graph. In
the worst case, an acyclic graph containing n nodes could have 2^n
nodes when
Richard Kelsall wrote:
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Hello
I remember there was a problem with haskell wiki pages not being
indexed and searched.
Now it seems to work perfectly. Actually typing 'monomorphism
restriction' in google I see the appropriate wiki page as the first
result.
I must have
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Richard Kelsall wrote:
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Hello
I remember there was a problem with haskell wiki pages not being
indexed and searched.
Now it seems to work perfectly. Actually typing 'monomorphism
restriction' in google I see the appropriate wiki page as the first
Oops, I was hasty in typing those data definitions. They will not work
because they have no constructors. Sorry about that.
- Jake
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Feb 13, 2008 2:41 PM, Jake McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now we can have NumericLists like [1 :: Int, 5.7 :: Double, 4%5 ::
Rational].
No, we can't =). Using
data NumericList = forall a . Num a = N [a]
*Main let a = N [1::Int,2,3,4]
*Main let b = N [1::Double,2,3,4]
*Main let c = N
The help of all was very useful. But since Jake gave me an example I prefer to
follow this up.
Although I 'm not so familiar generally with datatypes I have understood you. It
seems in this example that with existential types we can put in the same list
different types although generally this is
That looks really cool and I'd like to try it out. Can you provide
links to these packages?
gtk =0.9.12,
glib =0.9.12,
sourceview =0.9.12,
binary =0.4.1
I just don't have time to track them down myself ...
Justin
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
The package `binary' should be on hackage.haskell.org.
The others can be found in gtk2hs, I think: http://www.haskell.org/gtk2hs/
Antoine
On Feb 13, 2008 11:52 AM, Justin Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That looks really cool and I'd like to try it out. Can you provide
links to these
Hello again,
since Oleg presented an approach to the sharing problem that works on
acyclic graphs, I may as well mention an alternative, pure, standard
Haskell solution which is to express the fork points in the circuit
(or expression), i.e. the points at which an expression is duplicated.
You
The name existential types comes from the logical connective
exists, which is the dual of for all.
For example, given some property P of objects of type T, you can say
forall x : T. P(x) -- means that P holds for all things of type x
or
exists x : T. P(x) -- means that there is some x for which
tricky 0 = constant 0
tricky d = add e0 e1
where
(e0, e1) = fork (tricky (d-1))
Oops, I just realised that this isn't a very good example of
expressible sharing! The problem is that it doesn't take any inputs,
and expressible sharing just collapses (partially evaluates)
Richard Kelsall wrote:
Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Hello
I remember there was a problem with haskell wiki pages not being indexed
and searched.
Now it seems to work perfectly. Actually typing 'monomorphism
restriction' in google I see the appropriate wiki page as the first result.
Hi Ryan,
On Feb13, Ryan Ingram wrote:
However, you can express exists in terms of forall:
exists x, P(x) is equivalent to (not (forall x, not P(x)))
that is, if it is not true for all x that P(x) does not hold, then
there must be some x for which it does hold.
The existential types
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 16:31 -0500, Dan Licata wrote:
Hi Ryan,
On Feb13, Ryan Ingram wrote:
However, you can express exists in terms of forall:
exists x, P(x) is equivalent to (not (forall x, not P(x)))
that is, if it is not true for all x that P(x) does not hold, then
there must be
And in perl CPAN world, there are bundles that put together related
packages in one big install... Maybe there can be Cabal bundles.
Just an idea!
On Feb 12, 2008 2:03 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'll leave it up there as a separate package then. :)
-- Don
hitesh.jasani:
On 12 Feb 2008, at 5:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you say that *no* typical floating-point software is reliable?
With lots of hedging and clutching of protective amulets around the
word reliable, of course not. What I *am* saying is that
(a) it's exceptionally HARD to make reliable
Concerning parametrized vs parameterized
On 12 Feb 2008, at 11:21 pm, Wolfgang Jeltsch asked:
What spelling is more common?
Strictly speaking, there is no such word in English as parametrized.
There is no general morphological rule Xer = Xrized in English.
The only spelling accepted by the OED
In John Hughes' paper [1], Programming with Arrows, p. 20,
The truly interesting arrow types are those which do not
correspond to a monad, because it is here that arrows give us real
extra generality.
Since we know that stream functions cannot be represented as a monad,
then they are one of these
Hopefully this bundle would be a module that re-exports all the
submodules packages. I'm kind of annoyed by some of my code that
imports ten different modules for one function from each.
So in this case:
import nanoCrypto (md5, sha, hmac)
where nanoCrypto is a bundle (just another hackage
From: Jake McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: February 13, 2008 7:04:49 PM CST
To: Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] existential types
On Feb 13, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 2:41 PM, Jake McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now we can have
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
Concerning parametrized vs parameterized
On 12 Feb 2008, at 11:21 pm, Wolfgang Jeltsch asked:
What spelling is more common?
Strictly speaking, there is no such word in English as parametrized.
Except that, strictly speaking, there *is* a word parametrized in
Trialog:
Roman Leshchinskiy writes:
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you say that *no* typical floating-point software is reliable?
With lots of hedging and clutching of protective amulets around the
word reliable, of course not. What I *am* saying is that
(a) it's
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
On 14 Feb 2008, at 2:28 pm, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
On 12 Feb 2008, at 5:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you say that *no* typical floating-point software is reliable?
With lots of hedging and clutching of protective amulets
gtk =0.9.12,
glib =0.9.12,
sourceview =0.9.12,
These are all apart of gtk2hs:
http://haskell.org/gtk2hs/
For my build on Linux I had to pass a --enable-sourceview option to
./configure so that the sourceview package was picked up and built,
but I figure it's probably picked up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trialog:
Roman Leshchinskiy writes:
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you say that *no* typical floating-point software is reliable?
With lots of hedging and clutching of protective amulets around the
word reliable, of course not. What I
On 14 Feb 2008, at 6:01 pm, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
I don't understand this. Why use a type which can overflow in the
first place? Why not use Integer?
Why is this hard to understand?
Dijkstra's classic A Discipline of Programming distinguishes
several kinds of machine. I'm quoting from
On Feb 13, 2008 5:36 AM, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 9:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The approach is based on the final tagless representation. Here is our
DSL:
class Exp repr where
constant :: Int - repr Int
variable :: String - repr Int
add
On 14 Feb 2008, at 2:28 pm, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
On 12 Feb 2008, at 5:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you say that *no* typical floating-point software is reliable?
With lots of hedging and clutching of protective amulets around the
word reliable, of
40 matches
Mail list logo
