> 1. Is the left-fold the best/only interface to expose? I think yes, but that
> doesn't allow fine-grained control over cursors i.e. being able to open many
> cursors at once and interleave fetches from them. Or does it?
I'd like to remark first that many real databases let us avoid opening
many
Bayley, Alistair writes:
:
| Still making slow progress on an Oracle database binding... now I'm trying
| to fit the API I have into some sort of abstract interface (like the one(s)
| discussed previously:
| http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2003-August/004957.html ).
|
|
| 1. Is
(2nd attempt; mailman thinks I'm not a list member, but it still keeps
sending me mail.)
Still making slow progress on an Oracle database binding... now I'm trying
to fit the API I have into some sort of abstract interface (like the one(s)
discussed previously:
http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskel
setFoo:: State -> [Int] -> State
setFoo st x= State { foo = x
, bar = bar st
}
setBar:: State -> [String] -> State
setBar st x= State { foo = foo st
, bar = x
}
It should be sufficient
Peter Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > setFoo:: State -> [Int] -> State
> > setFoo st x= State { foo = x
> >, bar = bar st
> >}
There is an easier way to do this, using the record update syntax
rather than record construction synt
Hi,
in one of my programs, I have to modify individual fields of a pretty
large record structure quite frequently. Assume the structure is:
> data State = State { foo :: [Int]
>, bar :: [String]
>}
Then I'd like to have functions setFoo and set
On Monday 22 September 2003 12:10 pm, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
> Should I expect that Ptr memory allocated with malloc is garbage collected
> when no longer used by the Haskell runtime? The FFI spec doesn't say so
> explicitly (that I could see);
C programs use pointers in many ways: pointers to s
