From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Dec 2001 14:50:21 -
...
In case it isn't clear already, these definitions make a lattice on
the positive integers, with divides ~ leq, gcd ~ meet and lcm ~ join,
using the report's definitions of gcd and lcm.
Indeed,
From: Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:18:56 -0800
...
If someone could write a sentence or two to explain why gcd 0 0 = 0,
(ideally, brief ones I can put in the report by way of explanation),
I think that might help those of us who have not
From: S.D.Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:53:32 +0300
Further, the definintion
gcd(x, y) to be the smallest
z = 0 such that {m*x + n*y | m, n in Z} = {n*z | n in Z}
is not natural. In particular, how does it generalize to gcd X Y
for
From: George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:18:31 +0100
...
Yes. The Report definition says
gcd :: (Integral a) = a - a - a
gcd 0 0 = error Prelude.gcd: gcd 0 0 is undefined
gcd x y = gcd' (abs x) (abs y)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:48:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michal Gajda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Introduction of general hygienic macro's as you propose, forces us to
cope with following problems:
1. Full typechecking of macros(in place of definition) seems to need
second-rank polymorphism.
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jan-Willem Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan Bawden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A macro facility is like a pair of vise-grips (if you don't know what
those are, see http://www.technogulf.com/ht-vise.htm).
I found myself laughing
Subject: Re: Interesting: Lisp as a competitive advantage
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:16:37 -0400
From: Norman Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/avg.html
I wonder how Haskell compares in this regard.
I loved Graham's characterization of the
