Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.4
= The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.4 = A Mac OS X installer package for Mac OS 10.3 (Panther) is available at http://www.uni-graz.at/imawww/haskell/GHC-6.4.pkg.zip This package includes GHCi, profiling, dynamic linking support (experimental), documentation, and double-clickable icons. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.4
= The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.4 = A Mac OS X installer package for Mac OS 10.3 (Panther) is available at http://www.uni-graz.at/imawww/haskell/GHC-6.4.pkg.zip This package includes GHCi, profiling, dynamic linking support (experimental), documentation, and double-clickable icons. Additional Note: This requires XCode Tools 1.5 or later (available from Apple's web page for free, registration required). Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
[Haskell] Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.4
= The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.4 = A Mac OS X installer package for Mac OS 10.3 (Panther) is available at http://www.uni-graz.at/imawww/haskell/GHC-6.4.pkg.zip This package includes GHCi, profiling, dynamic linking support (experimental), documentation, and double-clickable icons. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] announce: wxhaskell 0.9
On Friday 25 February 2005 19:14, Daan Leijen wrote: Announcement: wxHaskell version 0.9 Could you (or anyone else) please give me a summary on how exactly I have to patch the makefile[.lib] so that I can compile this ghc-6.4? I found the discussion a bit confusing, because there were so many different issues... Thanx, Ben ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] instance Bounded Double
Interesting. In that case, I would agree that portability seems like another reason to define a Bounded instance for Double. That way users could call 'maxBound' and 'minBound' rather than 1/0 and -(1/0)... Frederik On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote: Haskell does not guarantee that 1/0 is well defined, nor that -(1/0) is different from 1/0. While the former is true for IEEE floating point numbers, the latter is only true when using affine infinities. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Shouldn't Double, Float, etc. be instances of Bounded? I've declared e.g. instance Bounded Double where minBound = -(1/0) maxBound = 1/0 in a module where I needed it and there doesn't seem to be any issue with the definition... Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/ ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
[Haskell] Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.4
= The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.4 = A Mac OS X installer package for Mac OS 10.3 (Panther) is available at http://www.uni-graz.at/imawww/haskell/GHC-6.4.pkg.zip This package includes GHCi, profiling, dynamic linking support (experimental), documentation, and double-clickable icons. Additional Note: This requires XCode Tools 1.5 or later (available from Apple's web page for free, registration required). Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] instance Bounded Double
And what would you have minBound and maxBound be? I guess you could use +/- the maximum value representable. Going for infinity is rather dodgy, and assumes an FP representation that has infinity. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Interesting. In that case, I would agree that portability seems like another reason to define a Bounded instance for Double. That way users could call 'maxBound' and 'minBound' rather than 1/0 and -(1/0)... Frederik On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote: Haskell does not guarantee that 1/0 is well defined, nor that -(1/0) is different from 1/0. While the former is true for IEEE floating point numbers, the latter is only true when using affine infinities. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Shouldn't Double, Float, etc. be instances of Bounded? I've declared e.g. instance Bounded Double where minBound = -(1/0) maxBound = 1/0 in a module where I needed it and there doesn't seem to be any issue with the definition... Frederik ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] instance Bounded Double
I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the key to this discussion is that real numbers are not bounded, while doubles are bounded. One cannot say what the smallest or largest real number are, but one can say what the smallest or largest double are (and it is unfortunately implementation specific, and probably pretty messy to set up). We could define maxBound as (2^(mantisa_space))^(2^(exponent_space)) and min bound pretty similarly... But I'm sure that everyone will agree that this is a horrible hack. One may even question whether Doubles should be bounded, in that they are an attempt to represent real numbers, and as such should come as close as is possible to being real numbers (meaning not having bounds). Sorry for a possibly irrelevant ramble. Bob On Mar 13, 2005, at 11:02 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote: And what would you have minBound and maxBound be? I guess you could use +/- the maximum value representable. Going for infinity is rather dodgy, and assumes an FP representation that has infinity. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Interesting. In that case, I would agree that portability seems like another reason to define a Bounded instance for Double. That way users could call 'maxBound' and 'minBound' rather than 1/0 and -(1/0)... Frederik On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote: Haskell does not guarantee that 1/0 is well defined, nor that -(1/0) is different from 1/0. While the former is true for IEEE floating point numbers, the latter is only true when using affine infinities. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Shouldn't Double, Float, etc. be instances of Bounded? I've declared e.g. instance Bounded Double where minBound = -(1/0) maxBound = 1/0 in a module where I needed it and there doesn't seem to be any issue with the definition... Frederik ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] instance Bounded Double
I agree with all of that. :) -- Lennart Thomas Davie wrote: I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the key to this discussion is that real numbers are not bounded, while doubles are bounded. One cannot say what the smallest or largest real number are, but one can say what the smallest or largest double are (and it is unfortunately implementation specific, and probably pretty messy to set up). We could define maxBound as (2^(mantisa_space))^(2^(exponent_space)) and min bound pretty similarly... But I'm sure that everyone will agree that this is a horrible hack. One may even question whether Doubles should be bounded, in that they are an attempt to represent real numbers, and as such should come as close as is possible to being real numbers (meaning not having bounds). Sorry for a possibly irrelevant ramble. Bob On Mar 13, 2005, at 11:02 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote: And what would you have minBound and maxBound be? I guess you could use +/- the maximum value representable. Going for infinity is rather dodgy, and assumes an FP representation that has infinity. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Interesting. In that case, I would agree that portability seems like another reason to define a Bounded instance for Double. That way users could call 'maxBound' and 'minBound' rather than 1/0 and -(1/0)... Frederik On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote: Haskell does not guarantee that 1/0 is well defined, nor that -(1/0) is different from 1/0. While the former is true for IEEE floating point numbers, the latter is only true when using affine infinities. -- Lennart Frederik Eaton wrote: Shouldn't Double, Float, etc. be instances of Bounded? I've declared e.g. instance Bounded Double where minBound = -(1/0) maxBound = 1/0 in a module where I needed it and there doesn't seem to be any issue with the definition... Frederik ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] Embedded Systems
I'm wondering if there is any port of Haskell to Embedded systems. Any hint welcomed nhc has been used for a number of embedded projects. As mentioned by Don Stewart, my group at Macquarie has a project to port nhc98 to Palm OS (not quite embedded but some similar issues). An older port that we did provided a proof of concept but we are in the process of re-engineering things to make it more stable and maintainable. As the first step, I am developing a literate version of the nhc98 runtime and factoring out system-specific things as we go. When it is finished I expect that the literate runtime will be useful to others wishing to learn how the runtime works and for other porting projects. Regards, Tony Sloane Dept of Computing, Macquarie University January - July 2005, Visiting Research Fellow, PLS, CSE, UNSW ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell] instance Bounded Double
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:08:26PM +, Thomas Davie wrote: I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the key to this discussion is that real numbers are not bounded, while doubles are bounded. One cannot say what the smallest or largest real number are, but one can say what the smallest or largest double are (and it is unfortunately implementation specific, and probably pretty messy to set up). We could define maxBound as (2^(mantisa_space))^(2^(exponent_space)) and min bound pretty similarly... But I'm sure that everyone will agree that this is a horrible hack. I don't see how this is any more hacky than defining the minBound for int as - 2^(number of bits - 1 ) and the maxBound as 2^(number of bits - 1) - 1 which seems to be generally accepted. In any case, I am in favor of including the instance, perhaps in its own module, due to the fact that if two useful libraries end up having to declare their own, said libraries cannot be used together. However, if they both rely on the same external module, no problems will arise. That and since the maxBound is machine dependent, it seems like it Should be made available somewhere in the libraries since portable programs would have no other way to figure this sort of thing out. John -- John Meacham - repetae.netjohn ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Solution to Thompson's Exercise 4.4
Michael Vanier wrote: Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:39:21 -0800 From: Sean Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org As an aside, I kept all of the exercises in revision control. So I can look back at what I first wrote and my later changes. A habit I plan to keep as I move on to other programming texts and languages. That's a nice approach. But I can't resist asking: once you've learned Haskell, what is there left to move on to? ;-) (-: I try to learn a new language every other year or so. Lisp and I have butted heads many times. So I thought I would try Haskell -- already love Python and the two are clearly siblings with divorced parents. Unfortunately since Haskell is neither C nor Perl, I will probably only dabble in it, much like Python. Not a fact I like, but one that the corporate world keeps making me swallow. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Solution to Thompson's Exercise 4.4
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:01:17 -0800 From: Sean Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Michael Vanier wrote: Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:39:21 -0800 From: Sean Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org As an aside, I kept all of the exercises in revision control. So I can look back at what I first wrote and my later changes. A habit I plan to keep as I move on to other programming texts and languages. That's a nice approach. But I can't resist asking: once you've learned Haskell, what is there left to move on to? ;-) (-: I try to learn a new language every other year or so. Lisp and I have butted heads many times. So I thought I would try Haskell -- already love Python and the two are clearly siblings with divorced parents. Unfortunately since Haskell is neither C nor Perl, I will probably only dabble in it, much like Python. Not a fact I like, but one that the corporate world keeps making me swallow. Actually, haskell and python share little except some syntactic similarities. But haskell shares a lot with lisp/scheme. There are some good books on scheme e.g. SICP (http://mitpress.mit.edu/~sicp) and How to Design Programs (http://www.htdp.org) which would be very helpful for the beginning haskell programmer to absorb (you have to learn to walk before you can write monadic parser combinators ;-)). OTOH lisp and scheme are strict languages, like ocaml, unlike haskell, which is lazy. That makes a big difference in practice. As for C or Perl, try using haskell to generate C or Perl and don't tell your employers where the C/perl code came from ;-) Even though I'm just a haskell newbie myself, I think it's the most interesting language around, by a pretty wide margin. Mike ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] RE: Newbern's Example 7
Jeff, Perfect explanation. I got gummed up in the syntactic sugar and thought that = was sugar for the do notation, not vice versa. Thank you for the reminder and clarification. - Alson ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
