G'day all.
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:47:13PM -0500, Jeffrey Palmer wrote:
Are there any options for people like me, or does my functional experience
remain limited to the hobby* work I can squeeze in at night and on weekends?
Thoughts?
The first thing you have to understand is that
G'day all.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:53:30PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
Btw, I wouldn't subscribe to Andrew's opinion that there isn't a lot of
functional (or even declarative) software engineering experience out
there..
Just to clarify: I meant to emphasise the _declarative_ part rather
G'day all.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:13:22PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, FP is older than OOP. So why are we so late :-) ?
I know you meant it as an offhand remark, but I think there are two
serious reasons why.
The first one is that OOP and GUIs happened at around the same time
G'day all.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:24:10AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm slowly getting around to this. Design questions:
(A) I think it would be a good compromise to declare that operators
like + are type *constructors* not type *variables*. So
S+T
would be a type.
G'day all.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:48:58PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
I have a curious Haskell design pattern. It's called one class per
function.
When used in conjunction with fundeps, I call it hacking C++-style
function overloading.
Sometimes I think it would be handy if the
G'day all.
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:03PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
Python has it as well (they stole it from Haskell?)
Python's layout rule looks more like Occam's than Haskell's, to my eyes.
Aside: Was Occam the first language of the post-punched-card era to use
layout as syntax?
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 09:21:32AM +1200, Tom Pledger wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. It's strong in all the areas I care
about, but someone else may find it a pain that there's no way to
prevent a module from exporting all its evidence declarations.
It _is_ a matter of
G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:03:46PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I'm not afraid of math (it was my undergraduate degree) and rather enjoy
theorems, but I'm also insanely practical and am interested in a book
which has a large section on *efficiency*.
You might want to look through
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 02:50:55PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I need a data structure which is a map from Ints to Doubles; the
distribution of the Ints is in the range say 0-2 and a map will
contain somewhere around 100-200 elements. I need to be able to query
*very*
G'day all.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:47:22PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I was wondering if anyone has a brand-spaking-new version of edison or
anything like it. The edison docs still refer to ghc 4.06, which can't be
good. If not, is there an edison-like project out there?
Chris Okasaki
G'day all.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 08:40:18AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
There aren't many type constructors T for which T a is an equality
type...
I can think of a few, like IORef. Admittedly I can't think of any that
are also monads.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:05:05PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I definitely can't do that at this stage. I have never liked
Float/Double/Ratio being in Enum, but there is no possibility of
removing them now. A year or two ago, maybe.
Just to clarify: Did you mean for
G'day all.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:13:07AM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
Would a Mercury version help? The Mercury distribution includes a
Mercury version of Myer's algorithm: it's in the directory `samples/diff'.
Disclaimer: I wrote the Mercury version.
That particular algorithm
G'day all.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:19:10PM +0100, George Russell wrote:
I have a confession to make. Andrew Bromage's list-based code is
much faster than my array-based code. So I think I shall end up
adapting Andrew Bromage's code, even though I do not understand it.
You mean you did
G'day all.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Paul Hudak wrote:
reminds of what I think is one of the biggest problems with conventional
software development: the lack of appreciable mathematics in the
specification, design, coding, or implementation of programs.
In the interest of
G'day all.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:26:06AM +0100, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
well I love design patterns, it's just that in Haskell-land
they are called higher-order functions, or polymorphic functions, etc.
Can I safely translate that as We use design patterns but we don't
like the name?
G'day all.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:27:21AM +0100, John Hughes wrote:
There are patterns of that sort in our programs, which we would probably
rather call design techniques, which aren't so easily captured by a
higher-order function definition.
As a matter of interest, _why_ would we
G'day all.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:05:27PM -0500, David Bergman wrote:
It seems like all the patterns, at least the ones in the GoF's
enumeration, can be expressed as higher-order functions and classes if
we only would have a way to traverse a record structure dynamically. If
someone can
G'day all.
Just to clarify...
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:42:21PM -0500, David Bergman wrote:
But, design patterns are clearly overestimated as a tool for (indirect)
code production, you are right in that.
Absolutely agreed. Design patterns are little more than:
- A common language
G'day all.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:47:37PM -0600, Artie Gold wrote:
One suggestion, though is that you're working too hard; there's really
no reason to define a locally defined function. The much simpler:
long [] = 0
long (x:xs) = 1 + long xs
will do quite nicely.
It has quite
G'day all.
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
It has quite different performance characteristics, though. In
particular, this uses O(n) stack space whereas the accumulator one
uses O(1) stack space.
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 12:17:10PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This is assuming
G'day all.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:39:18AM +, Alastair Reid wrote:
Please note that this is NOT TRUE!
Whoops, you're right. Sorry, my mistake.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
G'day all.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
Why can't field labels have the same name in different types?
Because it would generate two functions with the same name.
I'm not an expert on programming languages, but doesn't it seem
that Haskell, as a strongly-typed
G'day all.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:13:57PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
That's not the only problem. The other problem is that because
`Typeable' instances aren't built-in, `fromDynamic' is not type-safe.
The implementation of `fromDynamic' calls `typeOf' and then if the types
match,
G'day all.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 06:13:29PM -0500, Norman Ramsey wrote:
In a fit of madness, I have agreed to deliver a 50-minute lecture
on type classes to an audience of undergraduate students. These
students will have seen some simple typing rules for F2 and will
have some exposure to
G'day.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 01:44:07AM -0500, Mike T. Machenry wrote:
I was wondering if it's better to define them as type classes with the
operations defined in the class. What do haskellian's do?
I can't speak for other Haskellians, but on the whole, it depends.
Here's the common
G'day.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:46:02AM -0600, Rex Page wrote:
Here are two things I found interesting:
1. The author comments that programs are not theorems.
No, he argues that programming _languages_ are not theorems.
All that is required of a theorem is that it is correct.
A tool, on
G'day all.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:28:27PM -0800, Richard Nathan Linger wrote:
What do people think about this?
Has anyone else ever wished they had such support for unnamed sums?
I sometimes wish that Haskell did _not_ have support for unnamed
product types. To be honest, how hard is it
G'day all.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:10:28PM -0500, Matthew Donadio wrote:
This is my biggest gripe with Haskell, at least for what I do. The
numeric class system is good, but it assumes that the sub-classes are
distict, where in fact integers are a proper subset of reals, which
are a
G'day all.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:34:06AM +1300, Tom Pledger wrote:
If, on the other hand, you want to vary the state type *during* a
single monadic computation, it gets messy. You could try one of the
following.
Very often, you just want to vary the state type for some portion
of the
G'day all.
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:31:03PM -0500, Tim Sweeney wrote:
Conjecture: It's impossible to implement RefMonad directly in Haskell
without making use of built-in ST or IO functionality and without unsafe or
potentially diverging code (such as unsafeCoerce).
Any takers?
WARNING:
G'day all.
I've been toying with an idea for a small language extension, and I
was curious what you all think of this.
As a motivating example, consider the following standard typeclass:
class Bounded a where
min :: a
max :: a
This is an example of what I refer
G'day all.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:48:12AM -0700, Hal Daume wrote:
I'm not sure this is really necessary (at least syntax-wise).
Well, of course, no extension is absolutely necessary in a Turing-hard
language. :-)
For the record, here are a couple of other solutions which avoid the
G'day.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:02:36AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know of a suffix tree implementation
for Haskell? Are there algorithms for a (lazy) functional
setting?
Yes. Take a look here:
http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~kurtz/publications.html
The
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:23:59AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The paper has a strongly tutorial flavour, and comes complete with a
prototype implementation that you can play with.
Does the prototype implementation not support recursive lets?
*Main tcs let fix = (\\f
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:56:10AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
No it does not. As the paper explains.
Serves me right for playing with the toy before I read the manual.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL
G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 05:25:20PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
While this is a possible solution, I would shout loudly: Arrest this man,
he is disrespectful wrt math!. Actually, this shows once more that the Num
class and its relatives is a horror...
Yup.
I recently
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:16:56PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
As written, this is _not_ a good idea. Trust me, you end up having to
put type annotations everywhere. Even (3 + 4 :: Integer) is ambiguous,
you have to write (3 :: Integer) + (4 :: Integer).
But that's what
G'day all.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:28:19PM -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Don't be silly [...]
Never!
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:21:47PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
Why do you outrule other useful libraries (see above). In fact ($) is
quite cryptic (for a non-Haskeller).
Actually this gives me a perfect opportunity to rant a bit. :-)
($) is a wart, even for a Haskeller. It
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Someone mentioned multiplying by a scalar. I think this is a
good application, but what we need is to agree (somehow) on
the symbol used. I've used (*.) and (.*), with the dot being
on the side the scalar is on (on the
G'day all.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 04:08:25AM -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
What's wrong with that solution?
Working with these operators, I would spend a significant amount of
time getting the '' and '' notations right rather than writing
code. I don't like that.
For example, using the
G'day all.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:08:16AM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
Mere overload resolution (over monomorphic types) is not NP-hard. (This
is only a common misconception.)
No, but as you note below, the interesting cases are. Most
of the more interesting number-like types are
G'day all.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 01:52:32AM -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
It's maybe easiest to think in terms of group theory with an
action on a set: you're just distinguishing between the multiplication
of group elements and the actual action. This distinction is not
usually reflected
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:07:39PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
Mere overload resolution (over monomorphic types) is not NP-hard. (This
is only a common misconception.)
I can only repeat my above sentence.
I'm a firm believer in the maxim that the best way to find information
G'day all.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 01:32:49AM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
ghci -fglasgow-exts -fallow-overlapping-instances compiles it without
complaint
If it helps, ghci will complain the first time you actually try to use
it.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
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
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:42:59AM +0200, Jan Scheffczyk wrote:
I always thought that there is a tiny difference between let and where:
They're semantically equivalent. See, for example:
http://haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#sect4.4.3.2
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:03:52PM +, Jonas Ritter wrote:
+ :: Intervall - Intervall - Intervall
(a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c,b+d)
In general this is insufficient because of floating point rounding.
The standard IEEE 754 rounding rule is the floating point equivalent
of rounding to
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:57:27PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
GHC tries to do so, but sometimes gets it wrong. See the
-fwarn-incomplete-patterns flag. We'd appreciate it if someone could
overhaul this code - it's been on the wish list for a long time.
As a matter of curiosity,
G'day all.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:39:09PM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I'm attempting to get a sense of the topology of the Haskell
community.
I used Haskell to write a compiler for the RenderMan shading language
for a former employer. Unfortunately, the compiler never shipped.
I still
G'day all.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:52:48PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
but this might be an issue for others, who have to maintain legacy code.
You know a language has made it when we're talking about legacy code.
On the other hand, you have to worry about a pure declarative language
G'day all.
On a very recently checked out copy of GHC (late last week, from
memory) I get the following panic:
% ghc -fglasgow-exts -c Bug.hs
ghc-5.05: panic! (the `impossible' happened, GHC version 5.05):
applyTys
Please report it as a compiler bug to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
or
G'day all.
In a recent GHC checkout, the following program:
module Main(main) where
import Maybe
import Control.Monad
test :: (MonadPlus m) = [a] - m Bool
test xs
= do
(_:_) - return xs
return True
`mplus`
do
G'day all.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:12:58AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
So GHC is 30 lines shorter thanks to you.
...and I didn't even have to delete a single line of code myself!
Thanks, Simon.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
G'day all.
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:47 +0200, Pasch, Thomas (ACTGRO)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
For example:
'function f' gives the String "a-a"
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 08:28:16PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
[...]
In this form it's not even theoretically consistent: any
G'day all.
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:24:36PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
BTW, another question: should MonadPlus instead of just Monad be
a superclass of MonadError? It has a natural definition in terms
of catchError.
I can see how mplus has a natural definition (I can think of
G'day all.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:32:43AM +0800, Corneliu Popeea wrote:
I'm trying to use from Haskell a C++ library (Omega Calculator).
I'm using the following command:
ghc -c -fglasgow-exts -package lang main.hs
ghc main.o mylib.o -lomega -lstdc++ -fglasgow-exts -package lang
Do
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 06:06:07AM -0700, Julian Seward (Intl Vendor) wrote:
After some discussion in the GHC office, we're unsure about why
you need to compile Main.c with a C++ compiler for this to work.
Under g++ you may not strictly need it. I'm not sure about that.
However,
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 02:29:51AM -0700, Krasimir Angelov wrote:
Why Char is 32 bit. UniCode characters is 16 bit.
It's not quite as simple as that. There is a set of one million
(more correctly, 1M) Unicode characters which are only accessible
using surrogate pairs (i.e. two
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Also, the prelude definition of zipWith has LVL whereas the following
definition has LVV. Why is something like the following not used?
zipWith :: (a-b-c) - [a] - [b] - [c]
zipWith f (a:as) (b:bs) = f
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 06:17:26PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
This information is out of date. AFAIR about 4 of them is assigned.
Most for Chinese (current, not historic).
I wasn't aware of this. Last time I looked was Unicode 3.0. Thanks
for the update.
In
G'day all.
Why is it GHC 5.02.2, 5.03 etc.? Wouldn't it be easier
with 5.2.2, 5.3?
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't know, probably historical reasons: as far as I can remember,
GHC's version numbers always had two digits after the decimal point.
At
G'day all.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 09:44:11AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I, for one, am sorting expected, not worst-case, data :-)
gripe
What's this obsession with worst-case behaviour anyway?
The best algorithm to use is the one which exploits known facts about
the data. The converse
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:04:37AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I was going to run through the statistics to work out the expected
running time for a quick sort (i.e. sorting random data);
Few programs routinely run on random data.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 07:54:17AM -0700, Hal Daume III wrote:
I was reading the HFL libs, namely Control.Monad.Logic, and there's a
definition in there:
newtype Logic a = Logic { mkLogic :: (forall b. (a - b - b) - b - b) }
I'm curious why this is legal, but
newtype
G'day all.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:25:42PM +, Alastair Reid wrote:
So as people try to come up with a distribution and build mechanism
that will work for GHC, it would be good to think about how that
same mechanism would work for Hugs too.
If you will allow me to AOL...
Me too!
G'day all.
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:44:54PM -0400, Dimitry Golubovsky wrote:
What would be really nice to have is some sort of object input/output
over network. Then, by sending a String, I would expect it to be
recreated at the other end. And if the other end expects, say [Int] then
an
G'day all.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Jon Cast wrote:
I think you're confused about what the type declarations mean. When
you say
sqrt :: Float - Float
you're promising to operate over /all/ Floats.
That would be true of Haskell functions were constrained to be
total
G'day all.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 01:51:56PM +0100, Peter G. Hancock wrote:
Why not have a monad m a = Int - (a,Int) which is a state monad plus
the operation bump : Int - m Int
bump k n = (n,n+k)
Oh, ye of insufficient genericity. We can do better than that...
import
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:14:27AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
Mmm, such statements really assume that there's a sensible meaning to
`almost always' when applied to the set of all programmers, whereas I
think a much more realistic assumption is that `there's lots of people out
there,
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
I think the reason why Haskell compilers aren't generating any faster code
is that there is a lack of competition among different compilers. And I
think that the lack of competition depends on that noone wants to
G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:59:31AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
It's in saying this is warranted by `almost all'
processes being bound by things other than throughput which may be true in
the average sense, but I don't think that all programmers have almost all
their programming tasks
G'day all.
I have a large number of functions all of which use the same set
of type constraints, such as:
foo :: (Monad m, Ord t, Show t) = ...
Ideally, I'd like to combine them into one typeclass. At the moment,
I'm using the equivalent of:
class (Monad m, Ord t, Show t) =
G'day all.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 07:03:04PM -0700, Alex Peake wrote:
I am trying to implement a long-lived accumulator
How long is long? Over what kind of code must it be preserved?
In what kind of code do you want to modify it and in what kind of
code do you want to read it?
By what
G'day all.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 05:36:21PM -0700, Alex Peake wrote:
I am new to Haskell. I want to do something very simple (I thought)
but got lost in the world of Monads.
I want to implement something like the C idea of:
n += i
So how does one doe this in Haskell?
I think this
G'day all.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:06:51PM +0100, Alistair Bayley wrote:
OTOH, if you want to do anything useful with any language you have to learn
to do IO (and simple IO is tackled early in most languages), and therefore
you must deal with Monads. I often wish that Haskell books and
G'day all.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 04:19:38AM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
grr. this used to be in a FAQ at the Wiki. whatever happened to that?
Unfortunately, the ReportingProblems page is one of the ones which
died. It's also not in the google cache.
Does anyone know who's responsible for
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Mark Carroll wrote:
One issue we have here is that any Haskell we write is stuff we'll
probably want to keep using for a while so, although we've only just got
most of the bugs out of the H98 report, I'll certainly watch with interest
as
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:31:05PM +0100, Guest, Simon wrote:
Please could someone explain the meaning of | in this class
declaration (from Andrew's example):
class (Ord k) = Map m k v | m - k v where
lookupM :: m - k - Maybe v
Others have answered the question
G'day all.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:06:36AM +0100, Liyang Hu wrote:
The problem I'm having is with the preferences: How do I make it
available throughout the entire program? (FWIW, most of the work is
effectively done inside the IO monad.) I could explicitly pass the
record around
G'day all.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Dean Herington wrote:
I'm not sure why you consider the code you refer to above so ugly.
Anything which relies on unsafePerformIO (or seq, for that matter)
is ugly. Personal opinion, of course. :-)
Question:
Why do you use `seq` on
G'day all.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:29:26PM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
I get a speedup of about a factor of 6 for the test files I was using (of
course, this would depend on file size), and find that now only 2% of my
time is spent in that function. I'm still something like 100 times
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 11:50:39AM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
There are of course more serious approaches: intervals, etc. The infinite-
precision arithmetic is a mature domain, developed by many people. Actually
the Gosper arithmetic of continued fractions is also based on
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:08:57AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For an
interpreter I'm writing, I found myself writing a function
constructVarExpr :: String - Expr just to make it easier.
As an alternative opinion, I don't think there's anything wrong
with this. A constructor
G'day all.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Nuno Silva wrote:
can anyone help me how to get the dozen number? using Int
example
dozen 1020
the expected result is: 2
dozen :: Int - Int
dozen 1020 = 2
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:47:08AM +, Alastair Reid wrote:
(btw There were some remarks that Chris's library might be dropped
from distributions because no-one is supporting it. I don't recall
whether a decision was made on this.)
If Jason is using a version of Edison that
G'day all.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:20:47AM +0200, George Kosmidis wrote:
I am sure there are a billion errors in this.
This is the first one:
Line:17 - Last generator in do {...} must be an expression
What this means is that the compiler has interpreted the last line
of a do
G'day.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:49:37PM +1300, Jason Smith wrote:
i.e. TernaryTrie.hs:165: Data constructor not in scope: `M'
There is no M in that module anywhere, and I'm pretty sure there
never was.
Please update your copy from CVS and, if it still isn't working, send
a bug report to
G'day all.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:25:46PM +, Jorge Adriano wrote:
I think both versions can be very useful:
findM :: (Monad m) = (a - m Bool) - [a] - m (Maybe a)
findM' :: (Monad m) = (a - Bool) - [m a] - m (Maybe a)
I can also make a case for:
findM'' :: (Monad
G'day all.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:44:36PM -0500, Mike T. Machenry wrote:
I am trying to construct an infinate list of pairs of random colors.
I am hung up on getting a random color. I have:
data Color = Blue | Red | Green deriving (Eq, Ord, Show)
am I supposed to instantiate a Random
G'day all.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Ingo Wechsung wrote:
I am not going to change my editing habits just to make hugs or ghc happy.
What editor do you use? If you use a relatively smart one (e.g. vim,
emacs etc), you should be able to configure it to do it to do what you
want
G'day all.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:36:22PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Haven't we all been through this argument several months ago? I believe
the conclusion was people have different preferences, and Haskell allows
for that.
Sure, but that's a separate issue.
My remark was merely in
G'day all.
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:40:28PM +0100, Ingo Wechsung wrote:
No. It didn't hamper portability with C, Java, Perl or any other *nix stuff
since more than 30 years except with COBOL, Python (?) and Haskell, [...]
Add to that: Fortran, Occam and Makefiles. There's probably also a
G'day all.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:35:54AM +1100, Thomas L. Bevan wrote:
main = do (a:b:cs) - getArgs
i - return (read a :: Int)
j - return (read b :: Int)
putStr $ i + j
How can I catch any possible cast exception?
How about this?
readM
G'day all.
Slight correction...
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:03:03PM +1100, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
main = runErrorT main'
Of course you need to define an error type and do something with the
result of runErrorT, but you get the general idea.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:49:41PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
What's the way to express the following: a compound object
is generally made up of two components with identical type.
This should work:
\begin{code}
module Test where
class Component b where
property :: b - Int
G'day all.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:08:20PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
So is Kieburtz smoking crack, or are we writing OI-style programs
incorrectly?
I mailed him the example and asked. (I phrased the question a bit
differently, though.)
One possibility is that comonads are useful for
G'day all.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:55:50PM -, Guest, Simon wrote:
I'm trying to make a backtracking state monad using Ralf Hinze's
backtracking monad transformer. My problem is that it won't backtrack
very far.
Suppose I try ( a b ) `mplus` c.
If b fails, it should try c, but
G'day all.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:08:22AM +0100, Ralf Hinze wrote:
John Hughes wrote a nice pearl on the subject, see
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Globals.ps
Nice! Why isn't RefMonad in hslibs?
Possibly because of the class signature:
class Monad m = RefMonad m r |
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
