What an interesting coincidence, that makes at least three of us. Apparently
it's an idea whose time has come.
Mine is also an incomplete low-level binding but is currently under semi-active
development and I aim to make it cover the entire hdf5.h interface.
If anyone is interested in it I've
On Feb 15, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2011 23:29:39, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ouch!
I suppose what we could really do with is a combinator that runs a
monadic action N times, without actually constructing a list N elements
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu
wrote:
On 10/20/10 4:09 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
No, this isn't optimised. The trouble is that you write (map Foo xs), but
GHC doesn't know about 'map'. We could add a special case for map, but then
you'd
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Thomas Schilling nomin...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do we really want to treat every newtype wrappers as a form of 'id'?
For example:
newtype Nat = Nat Integer -- must always be positive
A possible rule (doesn't actually typecheck, but you get the idea):
Also keep in mind that Maybe is a sort of a toy example of the concept being
developed. It is indeed useful as a monad in its own right, but certainly not
a case where the comb function is absolutely essential, as wren demonstrated.
There are stronger motivations for using the 'comb' approach
On Sep 20, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Jean-Marie Gaillourdet wrote:
Hi Alberto,
On 20.09.2010, at 10:53, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2010/9/18 Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de
n_lastn n = reverse . take n . reverse
Which is the most elegant definition, but it's an O(length list) space
On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
which I am inclined to believe. Your 'f' should also run in O(1) space.
Alas, no. At least with GHC (and I don't see how it could be otherwise),
reverse is always an O(length xs) space operation.
reverse :: [a] - [a]
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
then you'll get more static guarantees (e.g., context-freeness)
but you need extra (type-level, or even syntax-level) machinery
to handle grammars. Convince me that it's worth it ...
Those guarantees, along with just the fact that the
On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Kevin Jardine wrote:
Hi Tony,
I stared at that specific section for at least half an hour earlier
today but could not figure out how it applied in my specific case. The
only examples I have see are for deriving Num. Do you have any more
detail on how I could use
In many cases it would make quite a lot of sense for the developer to be able
to specify default flags as well, preferably without resorting to including a C
file. Generally, the developer will know better than the user whether it makes
sense to include -N, the various thread affinity options,
A PureMT generator is immutable, so must be threaded through the monad in which
you are sampling. There are RandomSource instances provided for a few special
cases, including IORef PureMT in the IO monad. For example:
main = do
mt - newPureMT
src - newIORef mt
flips - runRVar
On Aug 31, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
What happened in the first half of 2006? monads were high there!.
Wasn't that about the time Microsoft was previewing the Power Shell,
codenamed Monad?
-- James___
Haskell-Cafe
On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote:
Okay, I figured the immutability bit out and I got the IORef example working,
but I can't get it to work with state.
put (pureMT 0) = runRVar flipCoin
gives me two type errors: No instance for (MonadState PureMT m) and No
instance
On Aug 5, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
mo...@deepbondi.net wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Given a suitable definition for Vector2 (i.e., a 2D vector with the
appropriate classes), it is delightfully trivial to implement de
Casteljau's algorithm:
de_Casteljau :: Scalar -
On Jun 4, 2010, at 9:42 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
---unless, perhaps, you have a way of deriving a definition of rvarT from
rvar. If so, then there could be efficiency issues in the other direction. I
could see some people just giving a pretty implementation of rvar and using
the
On Jun 3, 2010, at 10:03 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Though, since RVar is a synonym for RVarT, I can't imagine why rvar is a
method instead of a shorthand defined outside of the class. (If RVar were
primitive then I could imagine performance reasons, but since it isn't...)
The reason for
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Alexander Solla wrote:
We don't necessarily have to compute the inverse of the distribution via
sampling to do it. It can be done algebraically, in terms of the convolution
operator. Since the types are enumerated, wouldn't something like... work?
-- A set
I have now had a chance to experiment with these a bit, and have come up with
some changes that bring random-fu's speed in these tests into line with
Control.Monad.Random's when compiled with ghc-6.12.1, although it is still a
bit slower when using GHC 6.10.4. This is partially because one of
Thanks for the clues, I'll try and make some time this weekend to track it
down. I do have some gentoo x64 systems to play with. My first impulse is
actually that it is likely due to differences in inlining and/or rewrite rule
processing between the GHC versions, but we'll see what turns up.
19 matches
Mail list logo
