Re: [Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
my knowledge of point-free is from category theory. in what sense is Haskell point-free handle namespace pollution? Kind regards, Vasili On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 May 2008, at 12:29 AM, Galchin, Vasili wrote: compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^) I know what the advantages of C's notation are. But getting the best notation out of Haskell generally doesn't happen by trying to make your code look like C. So the general answer to questions of the form `C can do x; can Haskell' is `No'. Don't do it like in C. It won't be idiomatic, it won't be elegant, and neither of us will like the results. Understand the features of Haskell that make your program compact, point-free (how Haskell handles namespace pollution), and elegant and use those. This will require a different factoring of your program vs. C. Sorry, but that's life. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}C_type;
question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of the union inside of the C
typedef, i.e. recursion definition? Or must I have a separate definition for
the union which I instantiate inside the Haskell typedef, i.e. Haskell
data?
Kind regards, Vasili
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
Yes, you must write them seperately as something like
data A = A Int B
data B = B1 Int
| B2 Int Int
one of the many wonders of Haskell -- it encourages you to split up
your code into nice small chunks.
Bob
On 30 May 2008, at 08:46, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}C_type;
question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of the union inside
of the C typedef, i.e. recursion definition? Or must I have a
separate definition for the union which I instantiate inside the
Haskell typedef, i.e. Haskell data?
Kind regards, Vasili
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
On 29 May 2008, at 11:46 PM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}C_type;
question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of the union inside
of the C typedef, i.e. recursion definition? Or must I have a
separate definition for the union which I instantiate inside
the Haskell typedef, i.e. Haskell data?
Assuming all of these are semantic, you can say
newtype HS_type = HS_type (Int, Either Int (Int, Int))
But you lose named fields.
It's hard to give other advice without some idea of /why/ you want to
do something like this.
jcc
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^)
Vasili
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29 May 2008, at 11:46 PM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}C_type;
question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of the union inside of the
C typedef, i.e. recursion definition? Or must I have a separate definition
for the union which I instantiate inside the Haskell typedef, i.e.
Haskell data?
Assuming all of these are semantic, you can say
newtype HS_type = HS_type (Int, Either Int (Int, Int))
But you lose named fields.
It's hard to give other advice without some idea of /why/ you want to do
something like this.
jcc
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] modelling C in Haskell ..
On 30 May 2008, at 12:29 AM, Galchin, Vasili wrote: compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^) I know what the advantages of C's notation are. But getting the best notation out of Haskell generally doesn't happen by trying to make your code look like C. So the general answer to questions of the form `C can do x; can Haskell' is `No'. Don't do it like in C. It won't be idiomatic, it won't be elegant, and neither of us will like the results. Understand the features of Haskell that make your program compact, point-free (how Haskell handles namespace pollution), and elegant and use those. This will require a different factoring of your program vs. C. Sorry, but that's life. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
