Don Stewart wrote:
So I guess that means that I don't count
as a "knowledgable" Haskell programmer. :-(
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no
excuse :-)
I was about to say "yeah, but RWH isn't that good" - and then I noticed
who I'm speaking to. ;-)
So let me rephrase that: RWH isn't as good as I was hoping it would be.
Still, since I haven't written anything better myself, I guess I don't
get to criticise...
In any case, surely the Typeclassopedia would be a far better place to
comprehend Applicative?
Writing libraries that bind to C is a great way to have to use a lot of
hsc2hs (or c2hs), so clearly you need to contribute more libraries :-)
So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've
never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly
want to... I chose Haskell.)
Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
written and released several libraries on Hackage, none of which are in
any way related to C. Not every library is just a C binding, you know...
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
