Dear Haskellers
Does anyone have a complete archive of Haskell mailing list messages
between
May 1998
and
October 2000
On the latter date we moved to mailman, hosted at haskell.org, so there
are archives at haskell.org. I have a complete archive up to May 1998,
courtesy of
| What do people think of the following proposal? Remove fail from the
| Monad class. Reinstate MonadZero as a separate class as in Haskell
| 1.4.
This was debated extensively during the Haskell 98 process. I'm not
saying that we made the right decision then, but here's a link to (a
part of)
Simon Marlow pointed me to mail-archive.com. For some reason Google
doesn't seem to index this site, and it's not an easy site to navigate
around.
However, you can find the monadzero thread mostly on this page:
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell@haskell.org/thrd16.html
(search for
Hi folks
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 21:54 schrieb Cale Gibbard:
I personally feel that the inclusion of 'fail' in the Monad class is
an ugly solution to the problem of pattern matching, and gives the
incorrect impression that monads should have some builtin notion
John, Haskellers
Thanks to Thomas Johnsson and Libor, I've put together a complete
archive of the Haskell mailing list, from 11 Sept 1990 (birth, I think)
to Oct 2000 (when the Haskell.org mailman archive takes over).
It's available here
Much of the discussion here recently has been related to debate about
complexifying the monad hierarchy. The fact that Haskell record
syntax is abysmal and the verbosity of various possible solutions.
They appear to interrelate.
Would it be possible/reasonable to get rid of data, class, and
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
Much of the discussion here recently has been related to debate about
complexifying the monad hierarchy. The fact that Haskell record syntax is
abysmal and the verbosity of various possible solutions.
They appear to interrelate.
Would it be
This change solves the problem that different records in a single
namespace cannot share field names in a simple manner.
As mentioned elsewhere, you'd also need to remove the functional update
feature to fix this namespace problem.
In order to allow the writing of records code with is both
Hello John,
Wednesday, January 04, 2006, 10:13:00 PM, you wrote:
I saw that you are using unsafe foreign imports everywhere in
Database.HDBC.PostgreSQL. The trouble with them is that all Haskell
threads will be suspended during the call.
it is from Haskell-Cafe:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at
David Roundy wrote:
The only solution I can imagine
would be to implement a class for each field name. i.e. the only reasonble
type of f I can imagine is something like
f :: Integral i, RecordHasField_foo i r = r - r
But that's a very complicated solution, and once one implemented that
#646: ASSERT fails on newtype + forall
--+-
Reporter: guest| Owner:
Type: bug | Status: closed
Priority: normal |
Christian Maeder wrote:
Is the following failure known?
I got it after adding
{-# OPTIONS -fmax-simplifier-iterations0 #-}
to Logic_Haskell.hs
The corresponding .o file gets 15 MB large on a mac (if normally
compiled with -O).
Christian
Compiling Haskell.Logic_Haskell (
Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Christian Maeder wrote:
I've a few files that produce ten times bigger .o files when compiled
with optimization (-O). This blow-up prevents linking on a mac.
I had some success by adding
{-# OPTIONS -fno-strictness #-}
to the source of the big
P.S.
-fmax-simplifier-iterations
is rejected so
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/flag-reference.html
may need correction
You tried -fmax-simplifier-iterations10?
Ok, I forgot the n (or left a space)
C.
___
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, December 15, 2005, 4:53:27 PM, you wrote:
SM The 3k threads are still GC'd, but they are not actually *copied* during
SM GC.
SM It'll increase the memory overhead per thread from 2k (1k * 2 for
SM copying) to 4k (4k block, no overhead for
Hello Bulat,
Thursday, January 05, 2006, 3:14:12 AM, you wrote:
3) i also placed lock around `unstuff` call to decrease GC times
JR This sort of invalidates the test. We have already proven that it
JR works much better when you do this but it just pushes the delays
JR upstream.
on my 1ghz
My apologies if this has been described somewhere but what is MUT time?
Also, isn't 30% GC a bit high? This is something that totally
surprised me when I first saw it as my program was spending 60-70% on
GC.
Is there a good low % number that should be used as a benchmark?
Thanks,
Could you give us a bit more detail on this?
How does using handles involve large memory/CPU pressure?
On Jan 5, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
i also recommend you to try FD from my Binary package instead of
Handles because using 1000 Handles may involve a large memory/cpu
Joel Reymont wrote:
My apologies if this has been described somewhere but what is MUT time?
MUTator time, i.e. the time spent doing real work by your program. (the
term mutator isn't used so much these days, but it comes from the view
of a functional program as a graph, and the engine that
Josh Goldfoot wrote:
By the way, your version is already on the GP4 shootout, and has rated the
fastest.
It also has the 3rd fewest lines of code, and uses a hell of a lot
less memory than my version does.
Pretty cool! See the results here:
I piped the output of fasta (with N=250,000) into the entries on the
wiki [2] which I compiled with 'ghc -O2'. Watching with 'top', I saw
over 400MB of RSIZE by the end. So perhaps I am benchmarking wrong,
since this is the same memory usage as the original reverse-compliment
entry, and roughly
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, January 04, 2006, 7:33:22 PM, you wrote:
The minimum time between context switches is 20 milliseconds.
SM Sure, there's no reason why we couldn't do this. Of course, even
SM idle Haskell processes will be ticking away in the background, so
On 1/4/06, Brent Fulgham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some of the problems seem to be heavily geared
towards an imperative *implementation*, meaning that
a Haskell
version is hardly idiomatic Haskell (and as such I ,
and I
suspect otehrs,
Also about sum-file: They do not reveal what the actual 8k test file
contains. So there is no way to reproduce the benchmark locally for
testing. (One can learn it totals 40, but since negative numbers
are allowed, this does not help much).
The problem can even be solved in one line with
On 1/5/06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also about sum-file: They do not reveal what the actual 8k test file
contains. So there is no way to reproduce the benchmark locally for
testing. (One can learn it totals 40, but since negative numbers
are allowed, this does not help
Folks,
Has anyone tried to run Frag on Mac OSX?
Also, since I can't get it to run (glDrawBuffer crash), can someone
tell me if it includes monsters? It looks to me like it's just a
player with a gun running around.
Thanks, Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
On Jan 5, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:
I'm pretty sure I was on OSX when I tried it out a couple weeks
ago. There was at least one bot. I was able to kill it.
Game play was buggy and awkward, bots didn't seem to have any
intelligence.
Well, I would like to make extremely
On 1/5/06, Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
Has anyone tried to run Frag on Mac OSX?
Also, since I can't get it to run (glDrawBuffer crash), can someone
tell me if it includes monsters? It looks to me like it's just a
player with a gun running around.
It does include monsters,
I did manage to tweak SumFile to use unboxed Int# and go 10% faster.
http://haskell.org/hawiki/SumFile
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 1/5/06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also about sum-file: They do not reveal what the actual 8k test file
contains. So there is no way to reproduce
This uses getLine instead of getContents and is 3.8 times slower.
{-# OPTIONS -fglasgow-exts -O2 #-}
--
-- The Computer Language Shootout
-- http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
--
-- compile with : ghc -O2 -o SumF SumF.hs
-- To get better performance set default heap size to 10MB
-- i.e. invoke
Daniel,
My knowledge of Clean is fairly limited (even more so than my knowledge
of Haskell), but no one seems to be responding to this, so I'll take a
crack at it. Here is why I've stuck with Haskell instead of Clean:
1. It runs well on Linux
2. The license is more open
3. There is a
Hi
My knowledge of Clean is fairly limited
Mine too, but one of the biggest differences is that Clean has
uniqueness types instead of Monads.
They are in fact so similar that you can convert between them, using
Hacle: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/
I believe also that Clean has a
Interesting. Have there been any performance comparisons vs GHC et al?
Chad Scherrer
Computational Mathematics Group
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. -- Groucho Marx
-Original Message-
From: Neil Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL
On 1/5/06, Scherrer, Chad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. Have there been any performance comparisons vs GHC et al?
Yes:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/index.html#fin
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/eval.html
___
34 matches
Mail list logo
