Christian Maeder wrote:
>Could you also insert a prompt that is shown before the lines are read?
>(The first prompt seems to be tricky assuming line buffering )
>
>
If line-buffering is assumed or imposed, of course it prevents the
programming of interactive applications where the units of input
Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST
Monad I've come across references to a bewildering variety of related types such
as STRefs, STArrays, MutVar,
ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on. Is there a place
where I can get a comprehensive explanation of what's what?
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 12:48 schrieb Srinivas Nedunuri:
> Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on.
> Is there a place
Colin Runciman wrote:
> output are less than a line! However, there is no need to build
> line-buffering into the system, because it is easily defined in Haskell:
>
> buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
My interaction depends on the (subtle o
[apologies for cross-posting]
FACS'05
II International Workshop on
Formal Aspects of Component Software
Maca
Christian,
>>buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
>>I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
>>
>>
I don't see why you should think it hard to define a function like
'buffer'. The whole purpose of foldl is to encapsulate accumulation.
It demands the full spine of its list argument
Christian Maeder wrote:
Colin Runciman wrote:
buffer xs = foldl const xs xs
I don't find it this easy nor a good programming practise.
My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
total function?
I would not think so much about the operational evaluation ord
> >>My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
> >>total function?
> >>
> Pure, yes; total, no.
>
> Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
> for example, whether they compute a well-defined value at all! The
> interleaving of demand in
It seems to me that this sort of thing is why haskell is difficult to
compile to efficient code. I have the impression that relaxed
semantics wouldn't hurt 99% of programs while make the compiler-writer
job easier. The only disadvantage is that tricks like the above one
wouldn't work any more.
An
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote (in an
exchange with Colin Runciman):
My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a
pure and
total function?
Pure, yes; total, no.
Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
for example,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Colin Runciman wrote:
> >>My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and
> >>total function?
> >>
> Pure, yes; total, no.
>
> Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs:
> for example, whether they comput
"Srinivas Nedunuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray, ArrRef, etc. the list goes on. Is
> there a place where
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
It is one thing to embrace lazy evaluation order, and another to embrace
lazy IO (implemented using unsafeInterleaveIO). As a relative newcomer
to Haskell, I got the impression that the "interact" style was always a
hack, discarded for good reason in favor of the IO monad.
I've been trying to get hs-plugins working on a box, to use the Eval
module, but the register script seems not to register the eval
package, or the printf module, which judging by the readme:
---
And to unregister (maybe as root). Note that the unistall order
matters:
$ ghc-pkg -r pr
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 18:43 schrieb Andrew Pimlott:
> [...]
> It is one thing to embrace lazy evaluation order, and another to embrace
> lazy IO (implemented using unsafeInterleaveIO). As a relative newcomer
> to Haskell, I got the impression that the "interact" style was always a
> hack, disc
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 18:50 schrieb Peter Eriksen:
> "Srinivas Nedunuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hello, in trying to understand how to use the ST Monad I've come across
> > references to a bewildering variety of related types such as STRefs,
> > STArrays, MutVar, ArrayRef, IORef, IOArray
Am Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 19:21 schrieb Olaf Chitil:
> [...]
> In fact, unsafeInterleaveIO shows up limitations of the IO monad.
> Without this strange primitive (what is actually unsafe about it?)
unsafeInterleaveIO doesn't break referential transparency, right? I suppose,
it is unsafe in the s
17 matches
Mail list logo
