Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 19:21 schrieb Olaf Chitil:
> [...]
> In fact, unsafeInterleaveIO shows up limitations of the IO monad.
> Without this strange primitive (what is actually unsafe about it?)
unsafeInterleaveIO doesn't break referential transparency, right? I suppose,
it is unsafe in the s
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 18:50 schrieb Peter Eriksen:
> "Srinivas Nedunuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> > references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> > STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 18:43 schrieb Andrew Pimlott:
> [...]
> It is one thing to embrace lazy evaluation order, and another to embrace
> lazy IO (implemented using unsafeInterleaveIO). As a relative newcomer
> to Haskell, I got the impression that the "interact" style was always a
> hack, disc
I've been trying to get hs-plugins working on a box, to use the Eval
module, but the register script seems not to register the eval
package, or the printf module, which judging by the readme:
---
And to unregister (maybe as root). Note that the unistall order
matters:
$ ghc-pkg -r pr
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
It is one thing to embrace lazy evaluation order, and another to embrace
lazy IO (implemented using unsafeInterleaveIO). As a relative newcomer
to Haskell, I got the impression that the "interact" style was always a
hack, discarded for good reason in favor of the IO monad.
"Srinivas Nedunuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on. Is
> there a place where
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Colin Runciman wrote:
> >>My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
> >>total function?
> >>
> Pure, yes; total, no.
>
> Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
> for example, whether they comput
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote (in an
exchange with Colin Runciman):
My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a
pure and
total function?
Pure, yes; total, no.
Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
for example,
It seems to me that this sort of thing is why haskell is difficult to
compile to efficient code. I have the impression that relaxed
semantics wouldn't hurt 99% of programs while make the compiler-writer
job easier. The only disadvantage is that tricks like the above one
wouldn't work any more.
An
> >>My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
> >>total function?
> >>
> Pure, yes; total, no.
>
> Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
> for example, whether they compute a well-defined value at all! The
> interleaving of demand in
Christian Maeder wrote:
Colin Runciman wrote:
buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
total function?
I would not think so much about the operational evaluation ord
Christian,
>>buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
>>I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
>>
>>
I don't see why you should think it hard to define a function like
'buffer'. The whole purpose of foldl is to encapsulate accumulation.
It demands the full spine of its list argument
[apologies for cross-posting]
FACS'05
II International Workshop on
Formal Aspects of Component Software
Maca
Colin Runciman wrote:
> output are less than a line! However, there is no need to build
> line-buffering into the system, because it is easily defined in Haskell:
>
> buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
My interaction depends on the (subtle o
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 12:48 schrieb Srinivas Nedunuri:
> Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on.
> Is there a place
Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST
Monad I've come across references to a bewildering variety of related types such
as STRefs, STArrays, MutVar,
ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on. Is there a place
where I can get a comprehensive explanation of what's what?
Christian Maeder wrote:
>Could you also insert a prompt that is shown before the lines are read?
>(The first prompt seems to be tricky assuming line buffering )
>
>
If line-buffering is assumed or imposed, of course it prevents the
programming of interactive applications where the units of input
17 matches
Mail list logo
