> It seems that many prominent Haskell people are more or less associated
> with Microsoft. It has just been announced that Hugs may go into
> Microsoft Developers Studio and Simon Peyton-Jones is about to move to
> Microsoft. Is there a risk (or change, if you like) that Microsoft will
> eventual
Olaf suggests
> Hence I suggest that part (b) of rule 1 of the MR should
> be deleted, i.e. simple
> pattern bindings are just treated as function bindings. As I have said in a
> previous email, the recomputation issue could be handled by warnings from the
> compiler.
That would indeed not fall
| It has just been announced that Hugs may go into
| Microsoft Developers Studio
Please remember that one of the main goals with Haskell systems like
Hugs and GHC is to make Haskell an increasingly realistic choice for
program development by a wide range of people in a wide range of
environments.
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
> "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
> GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
> remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite a bit
> mo
> Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> > So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
> > "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
> > GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
> > remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite
I'm going to ask a very stupid question.
Why on earth is len computed twice in this example? I really don't
understand this!
(However, I don't understand the monomorphism restriction either, so the
moderator may want to drop this message!)
Surely as len takes no arguments, the contexts
I have the following code:
>class FixCls fix where
> fix :: f (fix f) -> fix f
> xif :: fix f -> f (fix f)
>
>class Functor f => Algebra f a where
> phi :: f a -> a
>
>class Functor f => CoAlgebra f a where
> psi :: a -> f a
>
>cata::(Algebra f a, FixCls fix) => fix f -> a
>cata = phi . m
>
> I'm going to ask a very stupid question.
>
> Why on earth is len computed twice in this example? I really don't
> understand this!
I have to confess that I mischievously hoped that someone
would say this: it demonstates the point nicely that
lifting the monomorphism restriction would ca
At 10:38 +0100 98/07/21, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>> Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
>> copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
>> licence, as far as I can see.)
>
>No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain" I mean freely
On 21-Jul-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:38 +0100 98/07/21, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> >> Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
> >> copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
> >> licence, as far as I can see.)
> >
> >No I
One of the original motivations for questioning the DMR steems from the
fact that function definitions expressed as simple pattern bindings are
sometimes rejected. The definition
sum as = foldr (+) 0 as
is accepted but
sum = foldr (+) 0
is not which is admittingly irritating. C
On 21 Jul, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm going to ask a very stupid question.
not stupid, actually quite subtle!
> Why on earth is len computed twice in this example? I really don't
> understand this!
I think the confusion arises from the use of the terms poly- and mono-
morphism to ref
| The type system rejects it:
|
| ERROR "hylomorphism.lhs" (line 22): Ambiguous type signature in
| type declaration
|
| *** ambiguous type : (CoAlgebra a b, Algebra a c) => b -> c
| *** assigned to: hylo
|
| I think I understand the reason, but my question is:
|
| How can I define that f
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I think I understand this. The two contexts of len *aren't* the
same, are they?
Actually, in the circumstances I think that this is correct behaviour!!!
Now, how do we fix it? Can we use type signatures to help us out here?
We know that
f :: (Num c) => [a]
Further to discussion on the StdHask site, and (of all places) ghc-bugs,
I remain concerned about the program-breaking proposal to have typesigs
scope over equation groups, thereby binding any type variable occurrences
in local signatures. But I agree with the need to add this expressivity.
Sure
Where is the announcment that MS will bundle Haskell with dev studio?
I couldn't find it on the MS site.
-Alex-
___
S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media
1-212-697-0184 voice1-212-697-1427 fax
> "Jorgen" == Jorgen Frojk Kjaersgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jorgen> It seems that many prominent Haskell people are more or less associated
Jorgen> with Microsoft. It has just been announced that Hugs may go into
Jorgen> Microsoft Developers Studio and Simon Peyton-Jones is about to mo
> "Simon" == Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>> > So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
>> > "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
>> > GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it
Step 1: MS introduces Haskell with all their marketing power
Step 2: VisualBasic programmers switch to Haskell after having
read about Haskell in all those colorful magazines.
Step 3: As they don't understand the concept of functional
languages, they complain about it. MS 'impro
At 23:28 +1000 98/07/21, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>I ANAL, but I believe the phrase "public domain" is a well-defined concept.
>It does not mean why Simon L Peyton Jones means by it, though.
>If something is public domain, then anyone can use it for anything.
I recall from the eighties about wha
If Microsoft can popularise the use of Haskell then we should welcome that
instead of pillorying Simon. It seems somewhat unreasonable to complain that:
a) the real world ignores well designed and engineered languages
b) real world use corrupts well designed and engineered languages
Languages whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Michaelson) wrote:
> If Microsoft can popularise the use of Haskell then we should welcome that
> instead of pillorying Simon. It seems somewhat unreasonable to complain that:
> a) the real world ignores well designed and engineered languages
> b) real world use corrupts w
Was: "Could Haskell be taken over by Microsoft".
Ugghhh.
I propose to change the subject. So, at least, I have changed
the "Subject"...
It seems that the first time when somebody announced the wonderful news
on this list was April the 1. Some people - I was among them - thought
*that*, what we c
Mark P Jones writes:
> ... you can build portable and popular languages
> with comprehensive and platform-independent libraries ...
> However, it requires a lot of time and/or people ---
> the kind of investment that is often possible only in
> a commercial environment.
If you think this is true,
Greg Michaelson wrote:
> If Microsoft can popularise the use of Haskell then we should welcome that
> instead of pillorying Simon.
I did by no means intend to pillory Simon. I have great respect for him
as a
researcher and I am confident that he has considered his move
carefully. But he
will pr
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
> So I tried creating my own Stringable class:
> > class Stringable a where
> > toString::a -> String
> > (./) :: (Stringable a,Stringable b)=> a->b->String
> > x./y = (toString x)++(toString y)
Wouldn't it be a great deal less tortuous to define:
> x .++ y = sho
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> > Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> > Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
> > copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
> > licence, as far as I can see.)
>
> No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain"
Toby Watson wrote:
> Hi Joergen,
>
> >'It has just been announced that Hugs may go into Microsoft Developers
> Studio'
>
> I would be grateful if you could tell me where to find the original
> announcement.
The original posts were in comp.lang.functional under the subject
"HugsEdit" dated last T
I would like to avoid using show all the time for printing strings e.g.
> val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "++(show $ 2 + 2)++" whenever."
I would prefer to type something like:
> val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "./(2+2)./" whenever."
> -- i can' find a better haskell compatible operator
I can't sim
Jorgen Frojk Kjaersgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
> something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
> any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
> as the "derived work
Mark P Jones wrote:
> | It has just been announced that Hugs may go into
> | Microsoft Developers Studio
>
> Please remember that one of the main goals with Haskell systems like
> Hugs and GHC is to make Haskell an increasingly realistic choice for
> program development by a wide range of people
Haskell doesn't seem to allow
> instance Num (Int->Int) where ...
or
> instance Stringable String where ...
How come?
-Alex-
PS I am sure this has been discussed before, but I missed it...
___
S. Alexander Jacobson
> It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
> something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
> any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
> as the "derived work" is published under GPL as well. This ensures tha
Alex Jacobson:
> > > > (./) :: (Stringable a,Stringable b)=> a->b->String
> > > > x./y = (toString x)++(toString y)
> > Wouldn't it be a great deal less tortuous to define:
> >
> > > x .++ y = show x ++ y
> >
> > > x ++. y = x ++ show y
> >
> > and then to use (++), (.++), or (++.), as approp
I've been on the Haskell list for over a year now as a bystander interested
in this new area of functional programming. My background is on the
marketing side of the software business and have worked for some of the
large ones (but not Microsoft!).
The recent thread of notes to "Could Haskell be
> No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain" I mean freely
> available for anyone to use for any purpose other than making money
> by selling the compiler itself. That isn't a formal definition,
> but I'm sure you see the intent.
>
> I have carefully avoided getting tangled up in
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> > So I tried creating my own Stringable class:
> > > class Stringable a where
> > > toString::a -> String
>
> > > (./) :: (Stringable a,Stringable b)=> a->b->String
> > > x./y = (toString x)++(toString y)
>
> Wouldn't it be a great deal less tortuous
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> (...) But it's never been a problem so far, and I doubt it will in the
future, so I'm reluctant to invest the time until pressed to do so.
No need to apologize to a group of haskell fanatics for using lazy
evaluation to solve this problem
I've been on the Haskell list for over a year now as a bystander interested
in this new area of functional programming. My background is on the
marketing side of the software business and have worked for some of the
large ones (but not Microsoft!).
The recent thread of notes to "Could Haskell be
I think the Haskell scene could only improve if Haskell was adopted by
Microsoft. Think about it: an endorsement from a global megacorp like
Microsoft would have programmers defecting to Haskell in droves.
Microsoft is not the great Satan, and it's harmful to think that way. I do
believe it'
40 matches
Mail list logo
