Andy Gimblett wrote:
Is there a way to make it automatically update a single contents page
with links to the documentation of all installed packages?
See:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe/53531/focus=53560
Gwern Branwen wrote:
If you use cabal-install (as you should!), you can have it build
haddocks by customizing ~/.cabal/config and adding:
documentation: True
Is there a way to make it automatically update a single contents page
with links to the documentation of all installed packages? I
On 10/6/06, John Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
deriving (Eq Foo, Ord Foo)
instead of
deriving (Eq, Ord) for Foo
So what does
newtype Foo a = Foo a
newtype Bar b = Bar b
class C a b
deriving (C (Foo a) (Bar b))
mean? I could see it meaning any or all of the following:
instance (C (Foo
This proposal is somewhat tongue in cheek, but at least it's amusing,
and who knows, it might be good for something. The idea is that one
could, in theory, allow both prefix unary minus and right sections of
subtraction, with the type-checker deciding which is meant based on
the context. Has
On 10/2/06, Tamas K Papp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have two lists, p and lambda (both are finite). I would like to
calculate
1) the cumulative sum of lambda, ie if
lambda = [lambda1,lambda2,lambda3,...]
then
csum lambda = [lambda1,lambda1+lambda2,lambda1+lambda2+lambda3,...]
Try
Thank you Oleg! That explanation is very clear.
On 9/28/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The typechecker commits to the instance
and adds to the current constraints
TypeCast x Int, Ord Bool, Eq Bool
The latter two are obviously satisfied and so discharged. The former
On 9/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, there is a version of TypeCast that works within the
same module, please see any code described in
http://pobox.com/~oleg/ftp/Haskell/typecast.html
Yes, I was aware of that; I gave the shorter version just because
On 9/23/06, Bernie Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a pattern binding is not simple, it must have a data constructor
on the lhs, therefore it cannot be overloaded. So the (dreaded) MR only
applies to simple pattern bindings.
I thought it was simple pattern bindings that could be *exempted*
Hi all,
I am writing, for my own amusement, a more general version of the
trick to implement variadic functions in Haskell outlined at
http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/vararg-fn.lhs. (If someone else has done
this already, please point me to it!) Code is attached at the end of
the message. My
On 9/15/06, Robert Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can define a direct fixed point combinator
without relying on nominal recursion in Haskell, but it requires you to
define a helper newtype.
That's really nifty! I'd been wondering whether you could do this
too. Is there a reason for the
On 9/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this in mind the equations
1) return _|_ == Return _|_
2) _|_ `seq` (return _|_) == _|_
can be interpreted:
1) when reducing a return-redex (i.e. evaluating it), we get weak-head
normal form without evaluating the argument
On 9/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So `seq` forces its first argument. When we define
f x = x `seq` (Return x)
we thereby get
f _|_== _|_
f [] == Return []
f (x:xs) == Return (x:xs)
To compare, the semantics of (evaluate) is
evaluate _|_== ThrowException
On 9/13/06, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want more sugar, what about the list monad?
main = do
args - getArgs
sequence_ $
do arg - args
n - [1..3]
return (putStrLn $ show n ++ ) ++ arg)
Or, what about using ListT
On 9/13/06, Bertram Felgenhauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Shulman wrote:
class MonadList m where
option :: [a] - m a
[...]
There's no need for an extra class, it can be done with MonadPlus:
option :: MonadPlus m = [a] - m a
option = msum . map return
But this doesn't always give
On 9/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GHC documentation says that (evaluate a) is not the same as (a
`seq` return a). Can someone explain the difference to me, or point
me to a place where it is explained?
(evaluate a) is weaker than (a `seq` return a). (a `seq` return
A propos of sections of subtraction, and thence to sections of other
noncommutative operators, as a Haskell newbie I was surprised to
discover (the hard way!) that
( 0)
and
(() 0)
mean different things. I had typed ( 0) when I meant to type (()
0). No compiler errors, of course, and I had a
No, lisp doesn't have currying, but of course I knew that Haskell
does. I think my thought processes went something like this: I want
to partially apply , but is an infix operator in Haskell, so
first I have to convert it to the function () written with prefix
notation and then partially apply
On 9/9/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes: tuples, contexts, set of classes to derive from in a deriving clause,
module export list, import directives.
I guess I thought of most of those as a sort of grouping, without
really thinking about it. But I suppose you are right that they
The GHC documentation says that (evaluate a) is not the same as (a
`seq` return a). Can someone explain the difference to me, or point
me to a place where it is explained?
Mike
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
