[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please no! I want to be able to read other folks programmes
Me to ! My life depends on it - most of the time I am debugging other peoples
programs !
Bart Demoen
On 8 Oct, Jonathan King wrote:
> I think you might see the point. (No pun back there, I promise...) I
> understand where using "." to mean composition came from, and I know that
> it's a long-standing tradition in at least the Haskell community, but I
> don't think the visual correspondence
On 8 Oct, Christopher Jeris wrote:
> Personal taste in infix operators seems to be another good argument for a
> camlp4-style preprocessor for Haskell.
Please no! I want to be able to read other folks programmes and vice
versa. The whole point of suggesting a particular glyph on this foram
On 8 Oct, Joe English wrote:
> [I wrote]:
> > Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> > commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the order about.
> I've also seen .| and |. used for this purpose (by
> analogy with Unix pipes.)
> John Hughes' Arrow library spells
S.J.Thompson writes:
>
> I agree with Simon's observations, and would suggest a third option: why not
> set up comp.lang.haskell?
I agree with the above.
The established procedure for creation of a news group is documented in the
news.announce.newgroups FAQ available at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/
Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:13:34 -0400, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> One think I really think it needs is the ability to group a
> collection of functions with a tag. And then when importing a
> module you can ask to only import that tag. For example:
>
> module A
> list: head tail f
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:01:07 +0100 (BST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde,
> but co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > set up comp.lang.haskell?
> I agree with the above.
This is IMHO the best solution for a lot of reasons:
1. With many providers/client_softwares, you cannot ignore
a mail without downloading and deleting it. This makes it
hard to ignore a thread which one is no
On Fri 08 Oct, Lars Lundgren wrote:
> A value (IO a) *denotes* a program possibly interacting with the world.
> *That* program is of course not referentially transparent. A haskell
> program generating an (IO a) on the other hand *is* referetially
> transparent.
So a value of type (IO a) is _not
Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the order about.
Maybe we could adopt that as normal usag
Re: Syntax
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Even though I disagreed with the
use of . in the original case, I was
persuaded, and still think it ought to be a single
character. Unfortunately most of the other good candidates have been
used elsewhere.
That's right. Limited charact
> So we can decide to do one of two things:
>
> 1. Try to keep the Haskell mailing list as a low-traffic list, to which
> many, many people subscribe. Under this model, one might *start*
> a discussion on the Haskell list; but after a few exchanges, move the
> discussion to comp.lang.fun
> Traffic on the Haskell mailing list has jumped dramatically of late.
[...]
> So we can decide to do one of two things:
>
> 1. Try to keep the Haskell mailing list as a low-traffic list, to which
> many, many people subscribe. Under this model, one might *start*
> a discussion on the Haskel
> "Manuel" == Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Manuel> What do you think?
I'll use the opportunity to advocate wiki usage.
While I agree that it seems time to have multiple lists, some of the
recent high volume threads could have used the wiki to collect,
discuss and
I am writing a small program to do some numerical calculations.
I am wondering however if there is anykind of small package
to enable me to make simple plots (of functions for example)..
This is for windows (98) machine, so I cant use Gif Writer, which
seems sort of how to do it on unix machine
Simon PJ is too valuable to lose. I
(a) second the creation of comp.lang.haskell;
(b) suggest that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should have a policy
(enforced mechanically if necessary) of 1 contribution of length
at most 5 lines (or 350 characters) per user per thread.
Personal taste in infix operators seems to be another good argument for a
camlp4-style preprocessor for Haskell. For instance I would like to use
'o' for composition (since anybody who uses 'o' for a variable gets what
they deserve!) but I guess that would make the lexer not so nice.
I would also
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Hamilton Richards Jr. wrote:
>
> At 1:01 PM -0500 10/8/1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> >composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
> >
> >Just now I thought of .~ from . for comp
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the
At 1:01 PM -0500 10/8/1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
>composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
>Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
>commonly called twiddle) for twiddling
On 08-Oct-1999, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's important
> to understand whether or not we really do have referential transparency
> with monadic IO, if other models of interaction between program and
> outside world are (like those in Concurrent Haskell) going to be rejected
On 08-Oct-1999, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reaction to my recent suggestion regarding IO (a concurrent non-deterministic
> machine) on the Clean discussion list was somewhat less than enthusiastic.
> One of the reasons was that apparently this would result in loss of
> referential tra
On 07-Oct-1999, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is another reason I'm sceptical about referential transparency in
> any functional system of IO (streams, monads, continuations, world as value..)
> It is hard to sensibly define interaction between a timeless universe
> of pure function
I would like to add a vote for reorganization into two lists one of which
is a proper subset of the other. I stopped reading Usenet a long time ago
when the spam got too intolerable.
On the topic of the new Hugs : Is it conceivable to add the ability to
add new bindings into the top level envir
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> I think, the natural thing is to have more than one mailing
> list. I already proposed to have `haskell-help' or some
> such for newbie questions. It may also be time for
> `haskell-announce' - a list where only announcement of
> system, lib
> -Original Message-
> From: Lars Lundgren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 3:45 AM
> To: Adrian Hey
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OO in Haskell
>
> ...
>
> I'm really confused about all the fuzz about The IO monad not
> providing
> referential transp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the order about.
>
> M
On 07-Oct-1999, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 07 Oct, Michael Hobbs wrote:
> > Michael Hobbs wrote:
> > > > Consider this:
> > > > > type IO a = StateOfUniverse -> (a, StateOfUniverse)
> > > > > -- Not syntactically correct, but you know what I mean.
> > > >
> > > > So anything th
| Traffic on the Haskell mailing list has jumped dramatically of late ...
| ... if traffic is too heavy, large numbers of people will unsubscribe
| ... in the end, heavy traffic is self defeating.
I agree. Indeed I was on the point of unsubscribing, even though
I have a strong interest in Has
On 07-Oct-1999, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:10:26 -0400 (EDT), Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > 1) Dynamic types. You can't cast up. That is you can't recover the
> > original type from an object in a existential collection. You need
I agree with Simon's observations, and would suggest a third option: why not
set up comp.lang.haskell?
Simon Thompson
>
> | As far as I understood the matter, referential transparency
> | denotes the property of a language, in which variables of the
> | same scope do not change their value.
>
> So ML and Erlang are referentially transparent too?
Before everybody gets completely muddled up,
I point t
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Adrian Hey wrote:
> On Thu 07 Oct, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> > Check out the type signatures of the `MVar'-related
> > operations and you will find that they are all nicely
> > encapsulated in the `IO' monad.
>
> This is true, but I think the point of contention is
| As far as I understood the matter, referential transparency
| denotes the property of a language, in which variables of the
| same scope do not change their value.
So ML and Erlang are referentially transparent too?
Doesn't referential transparency include something about
functions return
Hi,
As far as I understood the matter, referential transparency
denotes the property of a language, in which variables of the
same scope do not change their value.
Given
>let var =
> ...
> ... -- some calculation
>
> ...
> f var
>
, 'f var' is called with
| What progress on the Great Hugs Collaboration? That is,
| being able to run
| Hugs bytecode inside GHC or GHC compiled code inside Hugs. I
| don't expect much detail but if the marriage is expected Real Soon Now, or
| alternatively has been postponed indefinitely, I would like to know!
An
On Fri 08 Oct, Wolfgang Lohmann wrote:
> Monadic IO is not thought ( in my opinion) to have IO during
> _the whole_ program, while preserving the referential transparency.
> Monads are fine to encapsulate effects, and so the IO Monad
> encapsulates input/output effects _to preserve_ the referent
Colin Runciman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also agree with Simon that simply making this a moderated list is
> not the solution. Perhaps splitting is best. How about
>
> haskell-info
> haskell-talk
>
> where info carries *brief* announcements, requests for information
> and responses to such
Perhaps we should create a comp.lang.haskell? -Paul
On Fri 08 Oct, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > It is hard to sensibly define interaction between a timeless universe
> > of pure functions and values and a real universe which continually evolves
> > in real time. A state transformer method is about as good as you'll
> > get, but this requires that so
Hello again Fergus,
For some reason you have sent this message to me despite the fact that
all the words you appear to disagree with are those of Michael Hobbs:-)
However, I assume you also disagree with my words so I'll try to respond.
Unfortunately we've been over this ground before on another
On Thu 07 Oct, I wrote:
> On Wed 06 Oct, Johan Nordlander wrote:
> > Just to avoid any unfortunate misconceptions: O'Haskell definitely
> > preserves the property we commonly refer to as referential transparency,
> > and so does Concurrent Haskell, or any other sound monadic extension of
> > the l
Folks,
Traffic on the Haskell mailing list has jumped dramatically of late.
In many ways that's a good thing: I take it a symptomatic that Haskell is
getting used for more things by more people.
But it has a bad side: if traffic is too heavy, large numbers of people will
unsubscribe (indeed,
On Thu 07 Oct, Jan Skibinski wrote:
> I think that the monadic IO provides us with such a
> simplification. As long as we realize what are its limitations
> and as long as we stay within reasonable limits of the concept
> we should be fine here. The operative word here is "realize".
> Do we really
44 matches
Mail list logo
