29 May 2001 22:44:38 +0200, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Wouldn't
> x f g
> in a Forth'ish machine mean
> g(f,x) -- using "standard" math notation, for a change
> rather than
> g(f(x))
> ?
It depends whether f changes the value at top of the stack or only
p
On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, at 04:44 PM, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wouldn't
> x f g
> in a Forth'ish machine mean
> g(f,x) -- using "standard" math notation, for a change
> rather than
> g(f(x))
> ?
In PostScript, a Forth der
Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> BTW, before I knew Haskell I exprimented with a syntax in which 'x f'
>> is the application of 'f' to 'x', and 'x f g' means '(x f) g'.
> Hmmm. An experimental syntax, you say...
> Oh, say, you reinvented FORTH?
Wouldn't
x f g
in a For
David Bakin wrote:
>
> That's a very nice visualization - exactly the kind of thing I was hoping
> for. I grabbed your papers and will look over them for more information,
> thanks very much for taking the trouble! The animations you sent me - and
> the ones on your page - are really nice; it wo
Marcin Kowalczyk:
> BTW, before I knew Haskell I exprimented with a syntax in which 'x f'
> is the application of 'f' to 'x', and 'x f g' means '(x f) g'. Other
> arguments can also be on the right, but in this case with parentheses,
> e.g. 'x f (y)' is a function f applied to two arguments.
Hm
That's a very nice visualization - exactly the kind of thing I was hoping
for. I grabbed your papers and will look over them for more information,
thanks very much for taking the trouble! The animations you sent me - and
the ones on your page - are really nice; it would be nice to have a system
l
Jay Cox complained that the following is not possible:
| data S m a = Nil | Cons a (m (S m a))
|
| instance (Show a, Show (m (S m a))) => Show (S m a) where
| show Nil = "Nil"
| show (Cons x y) = "Cons " ++ show x ++ " " ++ show y
Ken Shan answered:
| Here's how I've been handling su
David Bakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which of the various tools built-in or added to Hugs, GHC, NHC, etc. would
> help me visualize what's actually going on here? I think Hood would (using
> a newer Hugs, of course, I'm going to try it). What else?
I just used my old ghc-4.06 add-in `
