apfelmus wrote:
Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Loup Vaillant wrote:
Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
classes and higher order types in Haskell (and even more).
As far as names go:
for type classes, of course Wadler, but also Blott and Kaes.
for high
2008/4/2, Janis Voigtlaender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> apfelmus wrote:
>
> > Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
> >
> > > Loup Vaillant wrote:
> > > > Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
> > > > classes and higher order types in Haskell (and even more).
> > >
> > > As far as names
Loup Vaillant wrote:
By "higher order types", I meant the type of runST (ST monad),
or dpSwich (in yampa). I meant things like
"(forall a, a-> b) -> a -> b"
That's then usually called "higher-rank polymorphic types", just in case
you need more keywords for literature search ;-)
--
Dr. Janis Vo
On 2 Apr 2008, at 11:22, Henning Thielemann wrote:
It seems me it may come from an alteration of math conventions:
Normally (x) = x, and function application is written as f(x), except
for a few traditional names, like for example sin x. So if one
reasons that f(x) can be simplified to f x, then
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2008, at 12:40, PR Stanley wrote:
> > Why can't we have function application implemented outwardly
> > (inside-out). So
> > f g x would be applied with
> > gx first followed by its return value passed to f instead of
> > putting g x in brackets.
>
Hans Aberg writes:
...
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times, I am
still alive, so no need to say "this does not work".
Jerzy Karczm
On 2 Apr 2008, at 13:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not
work in Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times,
I am
still alive, so no need to say "this d
Hans Aberg comments my remark to his observation:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times, I am
still alive, so no need to say "this do
On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is possible, of course - I did that, too. But it means that
the syntax and semantics do not work together; an invitation to
pitfalls. So this ought to be avoided, except if there are no
other workarounds.
I am more tolerant.
The pr
On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be better to write a new Prelude. :-)
Oh, yes, our common dream...
One may not need to write a wholly new Prelude, by something like:
module NewPrelude where
import Prelude hiding -- Num, (+).
class AdditiveSemiMonoid a where
(+
2008/4/2, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > It would be better to write a new Prelude. :-)
> >
> > Oh, yes, our common dream...
>
> One may not need to write a wholly new Prelude, by something like:
>
> module NewPrelude where
>
> impor
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:20, Loup Vaillant wrote:
class AdditiveSemiMonoid a where
(+) :: a -> a -> a
Err, why *semi* monoid? Plain "monoid" would not be accurate?
A monoid has a unit:
class (AdditiveSemiMonoid a) => AdditiveMonoid a where
o :: a
The semimonoid is also called semigroup,
On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:27 , Hans Aberg wrote:
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:20, Loup Vaillant wrote:
While we're at it, what about adding even more classes, like "group"
or "ring"? Algebra in a whole class hierachy. :-)
Only ambition required :-).
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Mathematical_pre
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:30, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
While we're at it, what about adding even more classes, like "group"
or "ring"? Algebra in a whole class hierachy. :-)
Only ambition required :-).
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Mathematical_prelude_discussion
--- go nuts.
There
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nor did I use to take
> perfectly working code and refactor it until it cried for mercy, and then
> stay awake wondering if there was some abstraction out there I was missing
> that would really make it sing.
I find myself doi
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
> precdence
What's the innermost function in "f g x" here?
test :: (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> c
test f g x = f g x
--
Dan
__
2008/4/2, Dan Piponi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
> > precdence
>
>
> What's the innermost function in "f g x" here?
>
> test :: (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> c
>
| > I'm reading the following rule from your answer:
| >
| > [|exp|] normally returns the unevaluated AST of exp. However, if exp
| contains
| > local variables, these are lifted using Language.Haskell.TH.lift (i.e.
| evaluated
| > before lifting).
| >
| > Is that correct?
| >
| >
| > / Emil
|
Hello.
I've been playing around trying to write a framework to support/enforce access
control to resources. So far my efforts have yielded little but bruised
forehead and compressed plaster-board.
What I'd like is a solution that:
(1) prevents access to resources except via a fine-grained pe
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:47:04PM +0200, Alexey Rodriguez Yakushev wrote:
>
> The Data instance that Derive generates is as follows:
>
> > instance (Data ctx a,
> > Data ctx (BinTree a),
> > Sat (ctx (BinTree a))) =>
> > Data ctx (BinTree a)
It seems there is no ghc 6.8.2 for my version of debian. So I am
compiling from source.
I ran config with no problem. make generated some errors. I omit all
output except the end. Let me know if Ileft something important out
please.
make all
/usr/bin/ghc -H16m -O -w -I. -Iinclude -Rghc-timing -
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:12:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> so it's this line that seems of the most interesting
>
> cc1: error: unrecognized option `-fno-unit-at-a-time'
It looks like your version of ghc isn't designed to be used with the
version of gcc you have.
Putting this in mk/
Mark Jones brought higher order polymorphism to Haskell.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Janis Voigtlaender <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> apfelmus wrote:
>
> > Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
> >
> > Loup Vaillant wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
>
Apologies to Ian, I think I sent him direct mail on my first attempt to
reply.
Adding those lines to mk/build.mk did not work.
I hope Idon't have to build a newer gcc. This is what I have right now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/gcc$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/specs
Conf
2008/4/2 porrifolius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in type
> signatures via inference so application code knows which are required and
> type checker can reject static/dynamic role constraint violations
If you mean what I think you mean b
Hi folks,
HDBC-ODBC 1.1.4.1 has been uploaded to http://software.complete.org/hdbc-odbc
and to Hackage.
Bryn Keller reported a build problem on Windows with GHC 6.8.x, which has
been fixed.
-- John
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.o
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Hans Aberg wrote:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
You could define these instances with undefined function implementations
anyway. But also in a more cleaner type hierarchy li
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Hans Aberg wrote:
Show could be implemented by writing out the function closures, but I
think the reason it is not there is that it would create overhead in
compiled code.
It would also not give referential transparent answers, because the same
function can be implemente
28 matches
Mail list logo
