On 21/05/2004, at 8:06 AM, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
I pointed out that the type system _may already_ not terminate
I agree, I have made it not terminate myself with
undecidable-instances,
I also think prolog style backtacking would be a good idea...
For what it's worth, I'll AOL this (me too). I
| I agree, I have made it not terminate myself with
| undecidable-instances,
| I also think prolog style backtacking would be a good idea...
|
| For what it's worth, I'll AOL this (me too). I know that for the
| area of Haskell I'm exploring (integrating it with OO languages),
| putting
I have seen very compact Prolog implementations in Haskell, and I
also know that constraints, modelled by CHRs can be evaluated directly
in Prolog. Why not just bolt one of these compact Prologs onto the
compiler, and just feed it the facts and rules...
Keean.
Do we have enough Haskell now for it to have it's own category?
Python and other languages have their own category and it makes
it easier for folks like me to browse the haskell library of
darwinports.
That is unless we can get some kind of decent query system in
Darwinports
for finding out
I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
(http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
quote
Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
into problems that require a PhD. to
but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
Of course you could say that the excersise is not actaully as simple
as you believe, and other languages will let you get away with stuff
you really shouldn't be doing.
A good
On 21 May 2004 14:17, Jochen L. Leidner wrote:
sorry for an urgent newbie question: how can I create a statically
compiled version of a Haskell program on Linux with GHC that does not
rely on external shared libs (also for any of its libraries it uses)?
I would like to build a binary that
On 21 May 2004 01:07, John Sharley wrote:
I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
(http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
quote
Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:06:44PM +0100, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
I agree, I have made it not terminate myself with undecidable-instances,
Congratulations. ;-)
I also think prolog style backtacking would be a good idea... I think I said
that you either want full backtracking or you want to
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:04:53AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Nothing difficult in principle, but the constraint solver is one of
the more delicate parts of GHC because GHC's constraint language has
become so complex.
Well, as my day job is working for a constraints lab, I feel it's my
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
We've no idea what to do here. In your case it'd be possible to just
ignore the script, but presumably not so in general. [...]
I've just made a quick test on my SuSE 9.1 Linux and it seems to be the
case that an explicit -lpthread is not necessary anymore, even for
Jochen L. Leidner wrote:
sorry for an urgent newbie question: how can I create a statically
compiled version of a Haskell program on Linux with GHC that does not rely
on external shared libs (also for any of its libraries it uses)?
Possibly with a great deal of difficulty, depending upon
Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist with language
interoperability between lazy and strict languages.
I believe that is uncontroversial.
Actually, I think Haskell has one of the better language interoperability
13 matches
Mail list logo
