Re: Information

2001-05-31 Thread David Scarlett
Hugs is the standard Haskell interpreter... http://www.haskell.org/hugs/ See here for more info on Haskell. http://www.haskell.org/ ___ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Information

2001-05-31 Thread Shirley Widyaningsih
Dear Sir/Mdm, I would like to ask some information about Haskell. For the information, I'm a student that currently studying at Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia and taking computer science as my subject. In Indonesia, we've never learned about Haskell. It's not populer in Indone

Re: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Alastair David Reid
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (It would be good for someone, perhaps Simon P-J., to keep a > list of issues like this which have been left out of Haskell 98 > due to backwards compatibility concerns, so that they don't get > forgotten about when it comes to time for the next vers

Re: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 31-May-2001, C.Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "..it's easy enough for programmers who want a generalized version to just cut >and paste the code from the Haskell report and give it a more general type > signature,.." > >

Re: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Mark Tullsen
So much for my small, innocuous, non controversial suggestion :-). Fergus Henderson wrote: > > On 31-May-2001, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We should either generalise all three > > deleteBy > > deleteFirstsBy > > intersectBy > > or none. > > > > In favour:

Re: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread C.Reinke
"..it's easy enough for programmers who want a generalized version to just cut and paste the code from the Haskell report and give it a more general type signature,.." Fergus Henderson, June 2001 Is this definition of reuse in Hask

Re: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 31-May-2001, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We should either generalise all three > deleteBy > deleteFirstsBy > intersectBy > or none. > > In favour: > the more general types are occasionally useful > no programs stop working Actually some progra

Re: Dividing Floats

2001-05-31 Thread Daniel Russell
> Can anyone please help me. > How can you divide two floats? (and return a float, even if they divide > equally) > Ie (something like...) div 2.4 1.2 ---> 2.0 The above doesn't work since div can only be applied to integral numbers: div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a What you n

Dividing floats

2001-05-31 Thread Joshua Ginges
Title: Dividing floats Can anyone please help me. How can you divide two floats? (and return a float, even if they divide equally) Ie (something like...) div 2.4 1.2 ---> 2.0 Thanks Josh

Teaching Assistantships in the Computing Lab, University of Kent

2001-05-31 Thread S.J.Thompson
Haskellers welcome! Simon Teaching Assistantships in the Computing Lab, University of Kent Applications are invited for two posts of teaching assistant in the Computing Laboratory at the University of Kent. These posts are for a fixed-term period of four years and are intended to support

RE: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
I don't think there was a deep reason, but the current story makes it more like the other 'By' functions. Anyway, this is one thing that is not going to change! (Not that you were proposing that it should.) Simon | -Original Message- | From: Zhanyong Wan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sen

RE: Haskell 98 Report

2001-05-31 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
| > | deleteBy :: (a -> b -> Bool) -> a -> [b] -> [b] | > | | > | I've found it usefully used at this more general type. | > | > Indeed, and | > | >deleteFirstsBy :: (a -> b -> Bool) -> [b] -> [a] -> [b] | | and | | intersectBy :: (a -> b -> Bool) -> [a] -> [b] -> [a] Indeed. We

FW: Eq instance for (a,b,c,d,e) and upwards

2001-05-31 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Henrik Nilsson wrote: > So, if, in the interest of being conservative, the stated minimal > bound cannot be "infinity", could it at least be a great deal bigger > than what reasonably would be used in *hand-written* code? Say 15. An > arbitrary choice, of course, but it is not excessive from a

Re: Eq instance for (a,b,c,d,e) and upwards

2001-05-31 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Ralf Hinze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Henrik Nilsson wrote: > > > So, if, in the interest of being conservative, the stated minimal > > bound cannot be "infinity", could it at least be a great deal > > bigger than what reasonably would be used in *hand-written* > > code? Say 15. An arbitrary c