Currently I teach functional programming classes again,
and I wanted to present the derivation of ``lines''
that can be found in [Bird-Wadler-1988].
However, since I wanted to spare my students the confusion of
a non-prelude-equivalent definition of ``unlines'',
I re-did the development of
module Stimulus (
Stimulus(..),
VectorPattern(..),
VoltageUnits(..),
CurrentUnits(..),
TimeUnits(..),
FrequencyUnits(..),
Percent(..),
SlewRateUnits(..),
CapacitanceUnits(..),
Max(..),
Min(..),
Hi,
If I use ++ to concatenate two lists, how do I calculate the number of copy
operations, i.e. how do I approximate its efficiency compared to adding one
element at a time?
For example:
Does 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8 execute faster than [1, 2, 3, 4] ++ [5, 6, 7, 8], where
the first case is executed
I also support the idea's , and It doesn't chande the language it only
structures it, but I am a lightweight in Haskellland.
Sometimes I wonder if the readers are overworked or just plainly arrogant.
Friendly
Jan Brosius
- Original Message -
From: Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Wed, 3 May 2000 13:04:32 +0200, Jan Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
So I looked to the example below:
forall x . x + a x is not true , however forall x. x + a = x is true,
If "a" is 1, then the first is true too.
runST :: forall a. (forall s. ST s a) - a
It means that ST is a
- Original Message -
From: Jan Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: About the abuse of forall in Haskell
May 03, 2000 12:53 AM Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Tue, 2 May
I know it used to be; see
http://www.haskell.org/mailinglist.html
for example, but the archive I get from that page seems not
to have been updated in two months.
Currently I teach functional programming classes again,
and I wanted to present the derivation of ``lines''
that can be found in [Bird-Wadler-1988].
However, since I wanted to spare my students the confusion of
a non-prelude-equivalent definition of ``unlines'',
I re-did the development of
First let me thank the authors of the prototype Haskell parser (Simon
Marlow, Sven.Panne, and Noel Winstanley). It's a beautiful piece of
work.
While writing a desugarer for this, it occurred to me that somebody
might already have done the work and be willing to share it, if not
I'll make it
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Just a small generic comment:
IMVHO we should concentrate on making the thing useful for programmers.
Not on exact modelling of mathematical concepts.
I agree completely. There are two problems with freezing large modules into
languages:
(1) they make life
I have all of the archive links on the mailing list page fixed now.
John
Wed, 3 May 2000 18:20:28 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
PartialOrd was asked by Tom Pledger.
I responded: "if other people would not object".
Trying to be a kind guy. Let the others decide whether PartialOrd
is necessary.
It's not just a single place that I
On Wed, 3 May 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
But this is not good enough to attract general attention
and to make it easy to discuss about. The onus is still
on you, to be frank.
It is large enough. If I expand it with more comments, people will
be frightened by its
13 matches
Mail list logo
