On Fri, 12 May 2000, Jan Brosius wrote:
> >
> > Your example gave the same meaning to `b and forall.
>
> NOT true : forall works on a proposition and delivers another proposition .
> And this should REMAIN so.
>
> `b on the contrary works on a type and delivers a new type.
>
> Quite different
Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Haskell committee [...]
> there *is* no Haskell committee!
Fnord!
> * You can offer it for inclusion in hslibs/, an evolving
> collection of libraries that are distributed with
> GHC and Hugs
Perhaps we could organize a n
Hi,
Has anyone built any block simulators (for modeling continuous electronic
systems, like OP Amps, RC networks, etc) in Haskell? If so, any website URLs
would be of help to me.
Mike
On 12-May-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry for easy question,
> who could explain please, can Haskel work with the user-provided
> prelude instead of standard?
Name your prelude something different than "Prelude",
e.g. "SDM_Prelude".
Then every module which wants to u
Sorry for easy question,
who could explain please, can Haskel work with the user-provided
prelude instead of standard?
For example, may it work moving +,-,* to different classes?
If yes, probably, the user has to put somewhere the path to
Prelude.hs or such, to do it culturally ...
(going to
Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 11 May 2000
> I'd like to make a few comments about the recent
> discussion about Sergey's basAlgProp and related issues.
> [..]
> It may not be well known that
> there *is* no Haskell committee!
>
> There was a Haskell98 committee,
Dear Marcin,
I think we have reached now a point in the discussion that will only result
in yes and no.
1. Even as I still think that the forall in runST is misplaced I still stand
open for everyone that could
put forall s. (ST s a) in an acceptable logical phrase. forall and exist
work like th
Kuncak writes:
> Why don't we have "deriving Functor" in Haskell?
>
> Functor is in Prelude, so it could be known to the compiler.
> I am aware that one does not write modular interpreter every day,
> but I think that turning a type constructor into functor is something
> which is done quit
Thu, 11 May 2000 13:48:56 +0200, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> > Types can be treated as logical formulas, according to the Curry-Howard
> > isomorphism.
>
> Sorry, never heard of in logic. But perhaps you can explain.
Others explained it better that I could.
> > > newSTRef:: forall
I'd like to make a few comments about the recent
discussion about Sergey's basAlgProp and related issues.
The Haskell committee
~~
People often mention 'the Haskell committee'. (Jan Brosius
sent a message today asking how to write to this shadowy body.)
It may not be
Thu, 11 May 2000 13:43:20 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Why the classes are desirable here?
> Because the example functions fsq, (==), (+), (*)
> act in a *uniform way* for the residue domains
> Z/(4), Z/(5) ...
Hi,
is there any way to email written stuff to the Haskell
committee?
Very Friendly
Jan Brosius
>
>
>
> > Jan Brosius writes:
> > > Marcin Kowalczyk wrote at Wed, May 10, 2000 7:54 PM :
> > > > > 2. Next let me point out once and for all that
> > > > > logical quantifiers are used only in logical formula's .
> > > >
> > > > Types can be treated as logical formulas, according to the
Why don't we have "deriving Functor" in Haskell?
Functor is in Prelude, so it could be known to the compiler.
I am aware that one does not write modular interpreter every day,
but I think that turning a type constructor into functor is something
which is done quite often.
Am I missing something
Thorsten Altenkirch writes:
> Jan Brosius writes:
> > Marcin Kowalczyk wrote at Wed, May 10, 2000 7:54 PM :
> > > > 2. Next let me point out once and for all that
> > > > logical quantifiers are used only in logical formula's .
> > >
> > > Types can be treated as logical formulas, accor
Jan Brosius writes:
> Marcin Kowalczyk wrote at Wed, May 10, 2000 7:54 PM :
> > > 2. Next let me point out once and for all that
> > > logical quantifiers are used only in logical formula's .
> >
> > Types can be treated as logical formulas, according to the Curry-Howard
> > isomorphism.
>
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jan Brosius wrote:
> Marcin Kowalczyk wrote at Wed, May 10, 2000 7:54 PM :
>
> > Types can be treated as logical formulas, according to the Curry-Howard
> > isomorphism.
>
> Sorry, never heard of in logic. But perhaps you can explain.
>
M H Sørensen and P Urzyczyn.
Lectur
Marcin Kowalczyk wrote at Wed, May 10, 2000 7:54 PM :
> Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:06 +0200, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pisze:
pisze ? you meant wrote? Please don't use Russian in your reply, I don't
know Russian.
Do You know what pisze in Dutch could mean if spoken out loosely?
>
> > 2. Next
Simon Marlow writes:
> You didn't mention the accumulating parameter version:
[[[with correction pointed out by Koen Claessen:]]]
> lines :: String -> [String]
> lines s = lines' s ""
> where
> lines' [] acc = [reverse acc]
> lines' ('\n':s) acc = reverse acc : lines' s ""
> li
To my
> Here is a small, concrete and real example, more illustrative
> than the variable vector space, though, very similar with respect
> to Haskell.
> If this can be programmed adequately with the constructor classes,
> and such, this will mean a great deal.
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAI
There is now a mailing list for Gtk+HS - the Haskell binding
to the GTK+ GUI toolkit. See
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/haskell/gtk/#ml
for details.
Thanks to Simon Marlow for setting the list up.
Cheers,
Manuel
21 matches
Mail list logo
