Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
| IMHO it looks nicer to have Byte in function names, so
| there can be such type synonym too.
Style Warning!
Why do many people when designing libraries not make full
use of the Haskell module system? Instead of
writeByte
readByte
(or so), one could
Style Warning! ... writeByte - Byte.write
Yes yes yes please!
Often, if someone writes identifiersWithSuffix,
the suffix actually carries a type information or a module information,
and the programmer should use the type resp. module system
of the language to express that.
Should this also
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk schrieb folgendes am Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:54:29PM +0100:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Olaf Chitil wrote:
I just see one problem with John's proposal: the type Byte.
type Byte = Word8
I would prefer
type Octet = Word8
to emphasise that the functions really uses 8
Haskell.org has a page "Job Adverts".
http://www.haskell.org/jobs.html
I like the new scope. But to minimise confusion of people looking for
paid jobs (which now exist), why not reflect the explanations in the first
paragraph in the page structure? Two main sections should be sufficient,
Hello all,
I'm experimenting with the ST monad GHC/Hugs extension and came across a
puzzling omisson: in GHC 4.06 if I import the LazyST module instead of the
standard one then the knot-tying fixST combinator is not defined.
Aparently the reason for this omisson is not documented in the ghc
This is exactly what I proposed when fmap and the other weird names were
introduced. Hopefully there are more allies now.
Erik
- Original Message -
From: "Koen Claessen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "The Haskell Mailing List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:25 AM
Subject:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 03:25:11PM +0100, Koen Claessen wrote:
What do people think about this? If people prefer these
stylistic changes, I think we should not hesitate making
them for Haskell/2 by completely redesigning the module
structure and using more consistent naming conventions.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 03:25:11PM +0100, Koen Claessen wrote:
What do people think about this? If people prefer these
stylistic changes, I think we should not hesitate making
them for Haskell/2 by completely redesigning the module
structure and
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
* (+) and (-) being lumped in with (*) (doesn't anyone use vector spaces?)
That also causes me some headaches.
... Even for others, it might be scaling (s
- t - t).
It may
[Andrew Tolmach [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Indeed, I plan to publish a draft specification (quite soon) and
will be delighted to get feedback from the community before
investing heavily in implementation. I'm very glad to hear
that others are interested!
i'm also quite interested in this
Is there any documentation on using the FFI in the just released Hugs beta?
For example, what steps should I take to call the following C function?
#include stdio.h
void Hello () { printf ("Hello from C"); }
Erik
___
Haskell mailing list
Hi all,
I'm in the middle of writing kind inference for haskell, as part of a
type checker/inferer. After reading the section in the haskell report about
kind inference (section 4.6), I began to wonder why kind inference must
be done in dependency order.
Some friends and I came up with the
I apologise if this has been raised before, but the code I am
writing now would look rather nicer if "partially applied
type constructors" were permitted in instances. For example:
class Event e where
sync :: e a - IO a
data Event extraData a = blah blah . . .
instance (context on
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 4.08.2
We are pleased to announce a new release of the Glasgow Haskell
Compiler (GHC), version 4.08.2. The source distribution is freely
available via the World-Wide Web and through
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, George Russell wrote:
I apologise if this has been raised before, but the code I am
writing now would look rather nicer if "partially applied
type constructors" were permitted in instances.
They are. For example monads.
--
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
The download links on
http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/www.haskell.org/ghc/
for the new GHC 4.08.2 have somewhat (ahem) strange referents.
(The RedHat 6 binary package gives me a picture of Haskell B Curry,
the RH6 profiling package gives me a .dvi file of the dynamic semantics
of the language,
The original haskell.org site seems ok, just mirror.ac.uk is broken.
Oops, retract that. The RedHat 6 packages all seem to be 4.08.1, not
the advertised 4.08.2.
Regards,
Malcolm
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
The original haskell.org site seems ok, just mirror.ac.uk is broken.
Oops, retract that. The RedHat 6 packages all seem to be 4.08.1, not
the advertised 4.08.2.
There shouldn't be any links to RedHat 6 packages. I don't
have a RedHat 6.x machine
How about this slightly more general interface, which works
with the new
FFI libraries, and is trivial to implement on top of the
primitives in
GHC's IOExts:
hPut :: Storable a = Handle - a - IO ()
hGet :: Storable a = Handle - IO a
What about endianess? In
19 matches
Mail list logo
