G'day all.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 05:36:21PM -0700, Alex Peake wrote:
I am new to Haskell. I want to do something very simple (I thought)
but got lost in the world of Monads.
I want to implement something like the C idea of:
n += i
So how does one doe this in Haskell?
I think this
G'day all.
I have a large number of functions all of which use the same set
of type constraints, such as:
foo :: (Monad m, Ord t, Show t) = ...
Ideally, I'd like to combine them into one typeclass. At the moment,
I'm using the equivalent of:
class (Monad m, Ord t, Show t) =
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 02:50:55PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I need a data structure which is a map from Ints to Doubles; the
distribution of the Ints is in the range say 0-2 and a map will
contain somewhere around 100-200 elements. I need to be able to query
*very*
G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:03:46PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I'm not afraid of math (it was my undergraduate degree) and rather enjoy
theorems, but I'm also insanely practical and am interested in a book
which has a large section on *efficiency*.
You might want to look through
G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:59:31AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
It's in saying this is warranted by `almost all'
processes being bound by things other than throughput which may be true in
the average sense, but I don't think that all programmers have almost all
their programming tasks
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:14:27AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
Mmm, such statements really assume that there's a sensible meaning to
`almost always' when applied to the set of all programmers, whereas I
think a much more realistic assumption is that `there's lots of people out
there,
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
I think the reason why Haskell compilers aren't generating any faster code
is that there is a lack of competition among different compilers. And I
think that the lack of competition depends on that noone wants to
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 09:21:32AM +1200, Tom Pledger wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. It's strong in all the areas I care
about, but someone else may find it a pain that there's no way to
prevent a module from exporting all its evidence declarations.
It _is_ a matter of
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:04:37AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I was going to run through the statistics to work out the expected
running time for a quick sort (i.e. sorting random data);
Few programs routinely run on random data.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 01:51:56PM +0100, Peter G. Hancock wrote:
Why not have a monad m a = Int - (a,Int) which is a state monad plus
the operation bump : Int - m Int
bump k n = (n,n+k)
Oh, ye of insufficient genericity. We can do better than that...
import
G'day all.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 09:44:11AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I, for one, am sorting expected, not worst-case, data :-)
gripe
What's this obsession with worst-case behaviour anyway?
The best algorithm to use is the one which exploits known facts about
the data. The converse
G'day all.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Jon Cast wrote:
I think you're confused about what the type declarations mean. When
you say
sqrt :: Float - Float
you're promising to operate over /all/ Floats.
That would be true of Haskell functions were constrained to be
total
G'day all.
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:03PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
Python has it as well (they stole it from Haskell?)
Python's layout rule looks more like Occam's than Haskell's, to my eyes.
Aside: Was Occam the first language of the post-punched-card era to use
layout as syntax?
G'day all.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:48:58PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
I have a curious Haskell design pattern. It's called one class per
function.
When used in conjunction with fundeps, I call it hacking C++-style
function overloading.
Sometimes I think it would be handy if the
G'day all.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:24:10AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm slowly getting around to this. Design questions:
(A) I think it would be a good compromise to declare that operators
like + are type *constructors* not type *variables*. So
S+T
would be a type.
G'day all.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:53:30PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
Btw, I wouldn't subscribe to Andrew's opinion that there isn't a lot of
functional (or even declarative) software engineering experience out
there..
Just to clarify: I meant to emphasise the _declarative_ part rather
G'day all.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:13:22PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, FP is older than OOP. So why are we so late :-) ?
I know you meant it as an offhand remark, but I think there are two
serious reasons why.
The first one is that OOP and GUIs happened at around the same time
G'day all.
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:47:13PM -0500, Jeffrey Palmer wrote:
Are there any options for people like me, or does my functional experience
remain limited to the hobby* work I can squeeze in at night and on weekends?
Thoughts?
The first thing you have to understand is that
G'day all.
Why is it GHC 5.02.2, 5.03 etc.? Wouldn't it be easier
with 5.2.2, 5.3?
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't know, probably historical reasons: as far as I can remember,
GHC's version numbers always had two digits after the decimal point.
At
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Also, the prelude definition of zipWith has LVL whereas the following
definition has LVV. Why is something like the following not used?
zipWith :: (a-b-c) - [a] - [b] - [c]
zipWith f (a:as) (b:bs) = f
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 06:17:26PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
This information is out of date. AFAIR about 4 of them is assigned.
Most for Chinese (current, not historic).
I wasn't aware of this. Last time I looked was Unicode 3.0. Thanks
for the update.
In
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 02:29:51AM -0700, Krasimir Angelov wrote:
Why Char is 32 bit. UniCode characters is 16 bit.
It's not quite as simple as that. There is a set of one million
(more correctly, 1M) Unicode characters which are only accessible
using surrogate pairs (i.e. two
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 06:06:07AM -0700, Julian Seward (Intl Vendor) wrote:
After some discussion in the GHC office, we're unsure about why
you need to compile Main.c with a C++ compiler for this to work.
Under g++ you may not strictly need it. I'm not sure about that.
However,
G'day all.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:32:43AM +0800, Corneliu Popeea wrote:
I'm trying to use from Haskell a C++ library (Omega Calculator).
I'm using the following command:
ghc -c -fglasgow-exts -package lang main.hs
ghc main.o mylib.o -lomega -lstdc++ -fglasgow-exts -package lang
Do
G'day all.
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:24:36PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
BTW, another question: should MonadPlus instead of just Monad be
a superclass of MonadError? It has a natural definition in terms
of catchError.
I can see how mplus has a natural definition (I can think of
G'day all.
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:47 +0200, Pasch, Thomas (ACTGRO)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
For example:
'function f' gives the String "a-a"
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 08:28:16PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
[...]
In this form it's not even theoretically consistent: any
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
