You can find the SOE webpage here:
http://plucky.cs.yale.edu/soe/
I also updated the links from http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Books to point
to the right place. Please let me know if you see any other problems.
Thanks,-Paul
-Original Message-
From:
-Original Message-
From: Frank Rosemeier [mailto:fr...@rosemeier.info]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:23 AM
To: Hudak, Paul
Cc: Thomas Schilling; Ian Lynagh; Haskell; Wogahn, Mark
Subject: Re: [Haskell] Please help me to reconstruct the Yarrow
website! Re: New haskell.org server
Dear Mr
Dear All:
My research group is paying $200/month to maintain the old haskell.org at Yale,
and we cannot continue doing this indefinitely -- indeed, I had hoped that we
could have turned off the machine by now. I propose that we shut down the old
server on Jan 31, 2011. Hopefully this will
Ok, this sounds good to me. Thanks to everyone who helped with the transition.
Best wishes, -Paul
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lynagh [mailto:ig...@earth.li]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Hudak, Paul
Cc: Haskell; Wogahn, Mark
Subject: Re: [Haskell] Please help me
Call for Contributions
HASKELL WORKSHOP
June 25, 1995 La Jolla, CA
(on weekend between PEPM and FPCA)
Regarding "A Process for Change":
Simon said:
I'm not sure we're ready yet to embark on a formal "let's
design Haskell 2.0" exercise. I favour something a bit more
informal, perhaps focussed round an annual workshop, in
which we explore design options. Then, when it's become
clear who
Regarding standardization:
My suggestion to standardize Haskell was not a near-term thing,
but rather long-term; in particular there's no sense putting a
lot of effort into standardizing 1.X if we know that 2.0 is less
than a few years away.
In any case, the process is tedious and is
Post-Doctorate Research Position
Yale University
Department of Computer Science
The Haskell Project in the Department of Computer Science at Yale
University is seeking applicants for a one-year Post-Doctoral Research
Position.
I think it's important to realize that laws aren't being entirely
lost -- they're just being weakened a (wee) bit, in the form of
carrying an extra constraint. For example, eta conversion:
\x - f x = f
must simply be modified slightly:
\x - f x = fif f /= _|_
(I should
Indeed. Notice that there is a similar difference between call-by-need
and call-by-value beta:
(\x - u) t = u[t/x] call-by-need
(\x - u) t = u[t/x] if t /= _|_call-by-value
But here we seem to think the difference is important.
I would rather tell someone that to define a new type exactly
isomorphic to an old type they need to write
newtype Type = Constructor typeexp
then tell them that they need to write
data Type = Constructor !typeexp
The latter smacks too much of magic. This is clearly a
(This is a message on strictness, etc. I was too busy to reply
earlier when the discussion first began).
Like Ian, I would like to suggest that we lift functions in Haskell.
Originally there was a good reason not to: there was no need (and
indeed no way) to distinguish _|_ from \x-_|_. But
I haven't tried it in Haskell,
but it should either be illegal or cause the type-checker to enter an
infinite loop. (Hmmm! Maybe someone should try it ...)
Yes, after all, everyone knows that a language is defined by its
implementation... (:-)
-Paul
Thanks Sheng. For what it's worth, I wanted to also mention that
all of the programs that Sheng mentioned, except for the animation
program, were written by undergraduates in a course I taught last
semester (they were subsequently cleaned up somewhat by Sheng, the
TA for the course, but not
I think that we should try a different approach, forget about
the importing
mechanism, and make a single statement defining the intended semantics.
Section 1.2 (The Haskell Kernel) is the place. I propose adding the
following.
The translations given, and the identities given for
And now for a little quiz. What's the value of the following (legal)
Haskell expression? (Don't try it with hbc, it fails.)
let (+) + 1 + 1 = (+)
in 1 + 1
This is illegal syntax!! (+) and (the second) + are the same
variable, thus violating the linearity constraint for
George, I think you are implying that if an unshared list is passed to
this function then it can be mutated instead of copied. But
determining that it is unshared can be very difficult (of course it is
undecideable in general). Note in particular that you have to
determine if any of
I don't want to be misunderstood but I DON'T WANT to believe this.
You don't have to -- it was an APRIL FOOL'S JOKE!
(I figure I better go on record as saying this, otherwise
it will end up in the newspapers and then I really will be
in hot water!)
Happy Haskelling,
-Paul
---
At the risk of opening old wounds: why weren't ML/FX style modules
included in Haskell? I can think of a number of possible reasons, but
I'm interested in the "official" reason for leaving out such an
important feature.
Other committee members may have different recollections, but
19 matches
Mail list logo
