Cher Sébastien,
> Thanks. Unfortunately, the paper has been written in French.
No need to add ``Unfortunately''... ;-)
> Will come back with a link ASAP!
I guess that many will agree with my opinion:
Links to French papers are welcome, too!
Amicalement,
Wolfram
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 06:31:38AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
I maintaing multiple versions of GHC on all the machines I use regularly
for Haskell development. I have:
* ghc-7.6.3 installed under /usr/lib/ghc-7.6/
* ghc-7.8.4 installed under /usr/lib/ghc-7.8/
* ghc-7.10.2 installed
(Chapman U., USA; PC co-chair)
Wolfram Kahl (McMaster U., Canada; PC co-chair)
Tadeusz Litak(Erlangen, Germany)
Larissa Meinicke (U. Queensland, Australia)
Szabolcs Mikulas (London, UK)
Bernhard Möller (Augsburg, Germany
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Yesterday, I experimented a bit with base’s code, [...]
Maybe the proper is to reverse the whole approach: Leave base as it is,
and then build re-exporting smaller packages (e.g. a base-pure) on top
of it. The advantage is:
During one of my long Agda runs (with GHC-7.4.2), I observed the following
output, with run-time options
+RTS -S -H11G -M11G -K256M
:
7694558208 30623864 3833166176 0.11 0.11 234.75 234.7900 (Gen: 0)
7678904688 29295168 3847737784 0.11 0.11 242.04 242.0900 (Gen:
guards''
Best wishes,
Wolfram
-
@InProceedings{Kahl-2004a,
author = {Wolfram Kahl},
title ={Basic Pattern Matching Calculi: A Fresh View on Matching
Failure},
crossref = {FLOPS2004},
pages ={276--290},
DOI
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:43:26PM +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
I have ghc-7.4.0.20111219 made from source and tested it on the
DoCon-2.12 application -- thanks to people for their help!
It looks all right.
This was -- with skipping the module Random
Now it
I am not certain, but this may be the same problem that I once had,
and that was solved by updating to binutils-2.20.
ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.20.1.20100303
Wolfram
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:34:03AM +0100, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:
Hi all,
I'm getting the same error as
Hello,
with a large Agda development, I have a reproducible segmentation fault
that I have been able to localise to the serialisation
(Agda.TypeChecking.Serialise.encode), which heavily relies on Data.HashTable.
Now I find that Data.HashTable (from GHC-7.0.1) has a CPP-enabled DEBUG version
style!
Programme Committee
===
Rudolf Berghammer (Kiel), Jules Desharnais (Quebec), Wolfram Kahl (Munich),
David L. Parnas (Hamilton), Gunther Schmidt (Munich)
-
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Workshop home page: URL: http://ist.unibw-muenchen.de/RelMiS
in a technical report, all available from the EdComb home page at URL:
http://ist.unibw-muenchen.de/EdComb/
Best regards,
Wolfram Kahl
Simon Marlow writes:
You didn't mention the accumulating parameter version:
[[[with correction pointed out by Koen Claessen:]]]
lines :: String - [String]
lines s = lines' s ""
where
lines' [] acc = [reverse acc]
lines' ('\n':s) acc = reverse acc : lines' s ""
lines'
Shin-Cheng Mu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is puzzled why the derived foldr version of lines
is significantly faster than the prelude version,
which he recognises as an unfold:
I am curious why the Prelude version is less efficient than the
your fold version? It seems to me the fold version construct
st.unibw-muenchen.de/Lectures/FT2000/FP/Lines.html
Best regards,
Wolfram Kahl
st.unibw-muenchen.de/Lectures/FT2000/FP/Lines.html
Best regards,
Wolfram Kahl
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| elegant. If MVar's were instances of Ord as well as Eq, a
| neat solution would
| be to always get the least MVar first, but they aren't. So
| what should one do?
But you could make Flag an instance of Ord
data Flag =
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] answers my question:
| This is something that I have long been wondering about
| (perhaps it is just because of my ignorance):
| Wouldn't stable pointers be a cheaper and more appropriate means
| to get Ord for MVars, STRefs, and IORefs?
Could
Wojciech Moczydlowski, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Khaliff TM) wrote:
The second question - does anybody know about a GHC/Haskell library with
graphs implementation?
Depending on what precisely you need, Martin Erwig's
``Functional Graph Library'' might contain something useful for you:
| As far as I understood the matter, referential transparency
| denotes the property of a language, in which variables of the
| same scope do not change their value.
So ML and Erlang are referentially transparent too?
Before everybody gets completely muddled up,
I point to a
J.P. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on the dataflow list:
I have been in the IT business for about 40 years, and have been
maintaining PL/I programs intensively for the last year or so. In 1994
I wrote a book called "Flow Based Programming" which was quite well
received.
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, it is a bug (and GHC and Hugs don't do it
right - see my previous message; from your comment, I
presume HBC also doesn't follow the definition). I think,
the only Right Thing is to remove this awful rule (unless
Hi all,
since I have gotten into the habit to relate proposed diagonalisation
function, I will not resist this time, either ;-)
Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
as // bs = diag [] [ [ (a,b) | a - as] | b - bs ]
diag current [] = diag [] current
diag
Nguyen Phan Dung [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I have the following declaration:
class Soup where
...
instance Soup String where
...
instance Soup t = Soup [t] where
...
This will lead to an error: "instance overlapping".
Is there anyway to solve this?
(I
Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
diagonalise:: [[a]] - [a]
diagonalise l = d [] l
d [] [] = []
d acc [] = -- d [] acc would do, but muddles the order;
heads acc ++ d (rests acc) []
d ls (l1:rest) = heads (ls') ++ d (rests ls') rest
Mark P Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's my definition of an integer free diagonalization function.
[..] As written, I think
it is a nice example of programming with higher-order functions,
and, in particular, using function composition to construct a
pipelined program:
In the meantime I have discovered a flaw in my original
diagonalisation in that it looped in finite cases.
This can easily be mended:
DiagWK1:
diag :: [[a]] - [a]
diag = f id where
f :: ([[a]] - [[a]]) - [[a]] - [a]
f a [] = split id (a []) []
f a (l:ls) = split id (a [l]) ls
split
Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposes the following diagonalisation function:
[ (a,b) | (a,b) - [1..] // [1..] ]
For a suitable definition of (//), for example:
(//) :: [a] - [b] - [(a,b)]
xs // ys = diagonalize 1 [[(x,y) | x - xs] | y - ys]
where
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I have not done (any volunteers) is to export these rules, or
the function definitions to a thm prover.
I am in the course of exporting function definitions
(and later probably also rules)
to the term graph transformation system HOPS
(
Consider the following two Modules:
File A.lhs:
==
module A where
data A a = MkA a
==
File B.lhs:
==
module B where
import qualified A
type A a = A.A a--- Problem!
==
ghc-4.03 (current sources) complains while compiling B.lhs:
John Launchbury posed a nice puzzle about
mutual recursive bindings in the do notation:
test :: [Int]
test = do (x,z) - [(y,1),(2*y,2), (3*y,3)]
Just y - map isEven [z .. 2*z]
return (x+y)
isEven x = if even x then Just x else Nothing
Simon Peyton-Jones proposes:
A Haskell 98 addendum
[ ... ]
Well, the bits are frozen, but I propose to regard this as a gross
"typo" and add it to the typos page.
[ ... ]
So the "typo" fix I propose is
[ ... ]
Any objections?
Call it Haskell 1.6 ;-)
Best,
Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
foo := C a = a - b roughly equiv to foo :: C _a = _a - _b
I can easily imagine that you might want some variables to be a bound, and
others to be exact, as in
foo :: C a = a - _b
I don't think the above can be
To my last message:
Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
foo := C a = a - b roughly equiv to foo :: C _a = _a - _b
I can easily imagine that you might want some variables to be a bound, and
others to be exact, as in
foo :: C a = a - _b
Starting from Jeffrey R. Lewis' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wish to
let partial type declarations express binding of SOME type variables
foo :: C a = a - _b
and modulating the syntax proposed by Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED],
foo := C a = a - b
I suggested the following notation to
Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the only thing missing now in the above proposal
is a similar flexibility with contexts.
Say, you want `b' to be a bound, and thus use :=,
but you want the context to be exact
(i.e. you don't want extra context elements to be
Hello!
The following datatype declaration would, if possible,
actually be very useful for an application I have in mind:
module Test(V(..)) where
import ST
data V s = forall a . MkV (STRef s a) deriving Eq
But when compiling it with Ghc-4.00 I get:
==
ecserver ~~ ghc
Alan Grover ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes (on the Clean list):
I'd then like to modify the source code adding the better algorithm, but I'd
like to keep the original algorithm as the documentation. The
language/system should then help me prove that the better version is
equivalent. I feel
37 matches
Mail list logo
