On 16 May 2000, Carl R. Witty wrote:
"Jan Brosius" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SORRY, this is quite TRUE , in fact [forall x. alpha(x)] = alpha(x)
the above true equivalence seems to be easily considered as wrong . Why?
Because alpha(x) is TRUE can be read as alpha(x) is TRUE
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
I understand this so, that this particular task allows to set
`const'. Because first, condition1, condition2 apply to the
vector x; as they do not modify x, next_permutation(x)
yields the correct value when applied after them.
On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
Only the meaning of the words `scientific computing' in programming
has 90% changed since 1960-1970.
Now it means mainly the *symbolic* (not approximate) computation that
the scientists and engineers usually do on the paper.
I think that the
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Erik Zuurbier wrote:
I have read many, but not all of the messages on this subject. Did any of those
shed any light on the intended use of exceptions? Maybe that could explain
the disagreement. I can imagine:
1) You use exceptions for debugging your program, with the
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Mariano Suarez Alvarez wrote:
In a typed language, a function *cannot* be applied to something outside
its domain. That's the whole point!
That represents a certain degree of idealisation though? E.g., sqrt _as a
(single valued) mathematical function_ has domain R^{=0}.
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
All that being said, we can say that there are certain properties that
all haskell functions must fulfill. For example a recursive function
should never call itself with the arguments that it recieved.
e.g. myFunction 2 3 should not make
A longshot I know but...
Has anyone out there extended the parser combinators in Hutton Meijers
paper on Monadic Parser Combinators to deal with a large set of operators
with lots of precedence levels? (I can parse an operator and get its
application function and precedence level but applying
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
-- Would it be possible to add to Haskell a *macro-preprocessor*?
Source-source transformations are there everywhere. Why everything
should be hidden inside the compiler?
Isn't this two separate things? Macro processors are useful for hiding
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Ralf Hinze wrote:
Matthias Fischmann writes ...
I am now trying to learn Haskell for half a week and I like it a lot.
But I still did not find out too much about exception handling. Is it
possible that there is no ml-like mechanism with `raise' and `handle'
built
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
? groupBy (=) [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3] == [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3]]
What I want to know is whether the members of the mailing list thing
this is the right behaviour for groupBy.
I think that the utility of separating a list into runs satisfying a user
10 matches
Mail list logo
