On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> At 06:48 AM 1/13/00 , Jerzy wrote:
> > Modifying source codes of your development tools is clearly a
> > pathology if not a perversion. It diverts you from your principal
> > task which should *exploit* those tools.
>
> I'm glad to finally find
I would probably try something like:
1. To avoid unparsing/parsing which just add/remove a lot of redundancy:
use byte-encoding of that info(i don't know what kind of info You have,
so I cannot say how, probably just to blit struct's that You have would
be enough). In other words: use fd456 instea
At 06:48 AM 1/13/00 , you wrote:
> Modifying source codes of your development tools is clearly a
> pathology if not a perversion. It diverts you from your principal
> task which should *exploit* those tools.
I'm glad to finally find someone saying this in this forum. I was very
close to unsubsc
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> /* snip */
> You are completely and utterly missing the point. Or should
> I say, you are confusing it. Ian is not talking about moral
> here (moral arguments can be made, but he obviously didn't
> in the text you quoted) - he is talking about the practical
Hello Nguyen,
> So what are the important differences between Clean & Haskell?
Input and output in Haskell is done through the use of monads. In Clean
uniqueness typing is used.
There are some small syntax differences:
Haskell vs. Clean
(x:xs) vs [x:xs]
(a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] vs
Hi All,
I just discovered two Trojan Horse infected HaskellScript files (Back Orifice):
hscript98.exe and haskelldb.exe downloaded December 19th. New definitions
in my virus scanner just picked these up.
Best Regards,
Byron Hale
Effective Information
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(408)358-8064
Hello Ian,
> I'm interested in this; does "parts of the type checker that were
> undefined" mean that they just hadn't been written, or that the type
> system itself is unclear?
The former. Those parts had not been written (yet). Hopefully now that they
are writing their type checker in a higher
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Arjan van IJzendoorn wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> > > [..write your own Clean compiler...]
> > How difficult would this be?
>
> Writing it from scratch would be lots and lots of work. Translating to
> Haskell would also be far from easy. You can not simply throw aw
Arjan,
> Type checking in the presence of uniqueness annotations and
> classes is ridiculously hard. When I tried to implement monads
> with unique types I bumped into parts of the type checker that
> were undefined; resulting in a compiler crash. I think by now they
> have solved this, but reinv
