Hi,
The pfe command line tool from the Programatica Project has functionality that
seems to fit fairly well with what you are asking for:
pfe deps -- lists function level dependencies
pfe needed -- lists everything needed by a definition
pfe dead -- lists unused defini
Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
I would prefer notation like:
data Parser a | Alt (Parser a) (Parser a)
| Map ( b -> a) (Parser b)
| Succ a
Parser (a,b) | Seq (Parser a) (Parser b)
Parser String | Lit (String -> Bool)
Parser [a]| Man
Generic Haskell version 1.60 (Diamond)
We are happy to announce the fourth release of Generic Haskell,
an extension of Haskell that facilitates generic programming.
Generic Haskell includes the following features:
* type-indexed v
Dear colleagues,
Graham Hutton and Conor McBride at Nottingham and I are organizing a termly
seminar "Fun in the Afternoon" on functional programming and related
topics. The idea is to have a small number of talks as an antidote to
mid-term blues, three afternoons a year. The hope is that talks wi
I would prefer notation like:
data Parser a | Alt (Parser a) (Parser a)
| Map ( b -> a) (Parser b)
| Succ a
Parser (a,b) | Seq (Parser a) (Parser b)
Parser String | Lit (String -> Bool)
Parser [a]| Many (Parser a)
This takes a
Hello. This seems like a basic question, but I haven't
been able to find an answer. I have a pile of Haskell
code that is compiled into a library, and a Haskell program
that uses this library. What I would like is something
that will look at my program and follow the function calls
until it gets
Well, Kent Petersson and I proposed them as an addition to Haskell in
1994, so they are not that new. :)
-- Lennart
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~sheard/papers/silly.pdf
On Oct 11, 2006, at 09:47 , Paul Hudak wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Well, I think the GADT type definition syntax
The Haskell Cabal
The Common Architecture for Building Applications and Libraries.
http://haskell.org/cabal/
Cabal version 1.1.6 is now available.
It is included in GHC version 6.6. For other Haskell implementations or
older versions of GHC you can install it separately:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Well, I think the GADT type definition syntax is the syntax data type
definitions should have had from the start. Too bad we didn't
realize it 15 years ago.
-- Lennart
I agree! In my experience teaching Haskell, the current syntax is a bit
confusing for newbies
===
The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.6
===
The GHC Team is pleased to announce a new release of GHC.
There have been many changes since the 6.4.2 relea
On Oct 11, 2006, at 03:58 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello oleg,
Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 6:12:23 AM, you wrote:
Annotate the data type using a GADT:
data MyData a where
MyCon :: MyData a
It helps to reduce confusion about the merits of various features and
additions to Haskell if we u
Hello oleg,
Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 6:12:23 AM, you wrote:
>> Annotate the data type using a GADT:
>> data MyData a where
>> MyCon :: MyData a
> It helps to reduce confusion about the merits of various features and
> additions to Haskell if we use the term GADT exclusively for truly
> _gen
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
> Annotate the data type using a GADT:
> data MyData a where
> MyCon :: MyData a
The range of the data constructor MyCon is the entire type MyData a --
so the above data type is the regular algebraic data type, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
