Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
The following program
---
--main = print (show (fibs!!20))
main = print (show (nth 20 fibs))
nth 0 (h:_) = h
nth n (h:t) = nth (n-1) t
fibs :: [Integer]
-- fibs = 1 : (map snd $ iterate (\(x,y) - (y, x+y)) (1,1))
Hi Serguey!
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:14:53PM -0700, Serguey Zefirov wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
The following program
---
--main = print (show (fibs!!20))
main = print (show (nth 20 fibs))
nth 0 (h:_) = h
nth n (h:t) = nth
Hello,
GHC 6.0.1 for Mac OS X is now available through the darwinports system.
Darwinports is similar to the *BSD port system. It downloads and builds
both
the target and dependencies automatically for your machine.
Note that darwinports is still under development. OS X users who want a
Many thanks for Data.HashTable, which I am about to use. Unfortunately
I seem to need an unseemly hack because the key I want, namely ThreadId's,
don't have a hash function defined, and defining one requires me to muck
around with GHC internal functions. Could some more hash functions be
Please apologize in case you receive multiple copies of this information.
==
2nd CALL FOR PAPERS
Workshop on
High-Level Approaches to Parallel and Distributed Computing
held in the context of the
I'm finishing up my Haskell interface to WordNet
(http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/) and have a standard
unsafePerformIO question :).
Basically, the interface functions by first calling an initialization
function, 'initializeWordNet :: IO WordNetEnv'. WordNetEnv is
essentially just a
Hello,
I think, I realized now what my mistake was. The handling of overlapping
instances comes into play when the compiler has to decide which method
definition to choose for a specific instance. It is not for choosing one of
more possible instances.
In my example, C Int (Int,Char,Bool) Int
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:27:23 +0100, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If the databases *do* change over time, then there are two
possibilities:
1. the contents change due to external factors only
2. the contents change because this program doing the writing
in (1), you can still pretend
If the databases *do* change over time, then there are two
possibilities:
1. the contents change due to external factors only
2. the contents change because this program doing the writing
in (1), you can still pretend the interface is pure, by
imagining that
all the changes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:52:57 +0100, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isn't there the possibility of inlining causing a read to
happen twice even if it only appears to happen once?
In theory that would be a valid transformation, but in practice no
compiler would duplicate arbitrary
Isn't there the possibility of inlining causing a read to
happen twice even if it only appears to happen once?
In theory that would be a valid transformation, but in practice no
compiler would duplicate arbitrary computations. GHC
certainly doesn't.
I was thinking of a situation
On Tuesday, 2003-08-19, 13:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
Yes, I agree that one shouldn't rely on the no duplication of work
property. However, folloing this argument we arrive at the conclusion that
hGetContents is an invalid use of unsafePerformIO. (which is something I've
been saying for
On Tuesday, 2003-08-19, 13:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
Yes, I agree that one shouldn't rely on the no duplication of work
property. However, folloing this argument we arrive at the
conclusion that
hGetContents is an invalid use of unsafePerformIO. (which
is something I've
Briefly,
http://www.isi.edu/~hdaume/HWordNet/
HWordNet is a Haskell binding to the WordNet database. You will actually
need to have WordNet installed to use the Haskell interface, but you won't
need any of the source (the Haskell interface is 100% pure Haskell; no
crummy FFI bindings here!).
G'day all.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
I was thinking of a situation like
let x = unsafePerformIO readFooFromDB in x+x
I see from your Secrets of the GHC inliner paper that x wouldn't be
inlined by GHC, but it seems to me like a serious abuse of
Latest version can be downloaded via
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sulzmann/chameleon/
You might also want to check out
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sulzmann/chr/publications.html
- The Chameleon Type Debugger (Tool Demonstration)
- Interactive Type Debugging in Haskell
Martin
Hi Andrew,
let x = expensiveComputation foo in x + x
I would certainly hope that expensiveComputation wasn't called twice,
and even though the language doesn't guarantee it, I have already
written code that assumed it.
I always thought that there is a tiny difference between let and
Tom Pledger writes:
By the way, how does the a in a - b - IO (b, Bool) work?
It looks like it has something to do with the current row. Does
doquery have to accommodate any possible substitution for a ?
I fired this off without thinking about it too much, and looking
at the prelude type
On Monday 18 August 2003 22:24, Remi Turk wrote:
Would this suffice?
...
I guess so - it looks like what Brandon proposed, up to cosmetic differences.
Still, those cosmetic differences give me the chance to ask another question.
instance Functor Vector where
fmap f (Vector x y z)
I have been following the recent Monad tutorial discussion with interest,
and even read the tutorial, which is a useful addition to the existing
Haskell documentation. So useful in fact that it raises a question...
The whole monad mechanism seems to geared towards functions of one argument,
I want to sequence data structures in an efficient manner, to store them
to files and to send them over the network.
Simply deriving Show and Read is not very good, because it's space
inefficient and read cannot give any output until the whole data
structure is parsed.
So I thought I should
hello,
there were a lot of discussions on the library mailing list about
deriving binary, which is related to what you are asking. i don't think
that dealt with cyclic datatypes though. i don't think you can do much
about that from within haskell, unless you somehow encoded the sharing
G'day all.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:31:08PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
Under what conditions would Haskell programmers make some type an instance of
Functor? Whenever it could possibly be done (i.e. whenever fmap makes sense)?
Or just when fmap would be used frequently for some type?
23 matches
Mail list logo
