Hi,
I have a number of questions regarding categories and datatypes. I know
that many of the folk in this mailing list could answer these question, but
I wonder if there is a more appropriate forum. (i.e. the question are not
Haskell specific).
Thanks,
--Peter Douglass
I should probably mention that one doesn't need to know that a list is a
monad in order to use a list. However, understanding that a list obeys the
monad laws is a useful way to learn about monads.
--PeterD
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Douglass
> Sent: Thursday,
Monads are used not only for programming IO, state, exceptions etc, but also
are the foundation of lists. It is hard to imagine functional programming
without this basic datatype. Sets, Bags, trees etc are also monads. Phil
Wadler wrote a very useful paper Comprehending Monads which I notice is
Julian Assange wrote (Dec 28, 2000):
> This is why all non S-exp like lanaguage are doomed to progressive
> syntactic cancer as the useful parts of operator name space and syntax
> space become progressively polluted and mutated by one fad after
> another.
Could you expand on this? I would think
Hello all,
You will need to manually reconnect the link I sent into a single line
for it to work.
> There is a thread on comp.lang.functional which may be of interest.
> Here is a link that might work for you.
>
>
http://www.deja.com/dnquery.xp?search=thread&svcclass=dnserver&recnum=%3c8lh
8ss
There is a thread on comp.lang.functional which may be of interest.
Here is a link that might work for you.
http://www.deja.com/dnquery.xp?search=thread&svcclass=dnserver&recnum=%3c8lh
8ss$6le$[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3e%231/1
> -Original Message-
> From: Steinitz, Dominic J
> [mailto:[EMAIL P
Christian Sievers wrote:
> This looks strange, as (b^b)^b = b^(b^2), or generally
> n-->b = b^(b^(n-1)). A quick web search showed me tetration as
>
> b ^^ 1 = b
> b ^^ (n+1) = b ^ (b ^^ n)
>
> so b^^3 = b^(b^b); clearly a more interesting (and faster
> growing) definition.
Faster gr
ge function that
traverses the list just once. For more information on this, there is a
very good paper by Graham Hutton _A tutorial on the universality and
expressiveness of fold_ which probably can be found on the web or in a
University Library in the Journal of Functional Programming
The URL in this message has a typo,
http://www.cs.washigton.edu/research/projects/cecil/
should be
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Skibinski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:22 AM
> To: Anton Moscal
> Cc:
The question I have is this. In the example you gave the type signatures
for both versions of reverse are identical, are they not? If they are
identical, I don't see the harm in not qualifying the type signatures. On
the other hand, suppose they were not identical. If there are no argument
typ
s the lambda bound x or whether "x is_an integer" creates a new
binding.
On the other hand, if we assume that alpha(x) is an application of alpha
to x then the debate seems to be whether x refers to some value, or whether
it is simply a place-holder.
Perhaps Jan can clarify what is meant here.
--Peter Douglass
as been stirred up enough already, but as a newbie to
Haskell I also found the "forall" rules counter-intuitive with regard to
exitential types. (i.e. the use of forall a. when exists a. might have been
clearer.) I hope that at some point this area of Haskell will be revised.
--Peter Douglass
Koen Claessen wrote:
> But if you find that the Hawk way is interesting to do these
> kind of things, take a look at Lava as well. Lava has
> recently gotten a major rewrite (no monads left!), ...
I'm interested to know the rationale behind removing the monads. My
admittedly small experience wi
Laziness is a great advantage in some cases. When, at compile time, you do
not know what needs to be evaluated at run time, you can
a) evaluate everything that may need to be evaluated (and waste a great
deal of time)
b) write your own system to determine what needs to be evaluated at
run-tim
Bravo! I would only add that if the same development effort were expended
optimizing Haskell code, as is spent just getting C or C++ code to work, the
6-10 factor would be dramatically reduced.
--PeterD
-Original Message-
From: Ch. A. Herrmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, Mar
Jan's questions I don't think have a simple answer. My own belief is that
with sufficient development effort, one can always write a C program that is
more efficient than compiled Haskell code. However, the same thing also
applies to assembly language. The question, imho, is what are the typica
16 matches
Mail list logo
