Marc Weber wrote:
Hi. I spent much time trying to get it to work.. you have to download
the whole fptools directory (from cvs!).. and I think i did some little
patches but I can check out again and compare..
It did compile and I think it's working well but I'm still struggling
getting to use it..
These lineages are more or less right, except that there is a bit of
incest: LML is certainly one of the progenitors of Haskell. (more
semantically than syntactically, though)
Cheers,
--Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> G'day all.
>
> Quoting Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Actually, one of the
No one has mentioned yet that it's easy to change the associativity of $
within a module in Haskell 98:
import Prelude hiding (($))
infixl 0 $
f$x = f x
or, for the purists,
import Prelude hiding (($))
import qualified Prelude (($))
infixl 0 $
($) = (Prelude.$)
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is the way that I normally express it. Partly because I find
function application FAR more natural than right-associative
application,
I meant to say that I find function COMPOSITION more natural than
right-associative appl
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> This is the way that I normally express it. Partly because I find
> function application FAR more natural than right-associative application,
I meant to say that I find function COMPOSITION more natural than
right-associative application. It certainly fi
G'day all.
Quoting Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually, one of the main reasons that we chose (:) is that that's what
> Miranda used. So, at the time at least, it was not entirely clear what
> the "de facto universal inter-language standard" was.
Exactly. One point that's often not appr
G'day all.
Quoting Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Probably it was anticipated that right associative version will
> be more useful. You can use it to create a chain of transformations,
> similar to a chain of composed functions:
>
> (f . g . h) x = f $ g $ h $ x
Of course, if $ w
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 23:34 +, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
. . .
> But this implies [a,b,c,[]..] is the same as [a,b,c] and [a,b,c,[d,e,f]..] is
> the same as [a,b,c,d,e,f] and [a,b,c,[d,e,f..]..] is [a,b,c,d,e,f..]
Hmmm, does this get us to difference lists ala Prolog?
-- Bill Wood
Brian Hulley wrote:
> Jared Updike wrote:
>>> [a,b,c ; tail] === a :: b :: c :: tail --
>>> where ::
>>
>> How is [a,b,c ; tail] simpler, clearer or less typing than
>> a:b:c:tail ? I think that the commas and semicolons are easy to
>> confuse.
>
> It seems strange tha
Jared Updike wrote:
[a,b,c ; tail] === a :: b :: c :: tail --
where ::
How is [a,b,c ; tail] simpler, clearer or less typing than
a:b:c:tail ? I think that the commas and semicolons are easy to
confuse.
It seems strange that you can write [a,b,c] with a nice list
> [a,b,c ; tail] === a :: b :: c :: tail -- where ::
How is [a,b,c ; tail] simpler, clearer or less typing than
a:b:c:tail ? I think that the commas and semicolons are easy to
confuse.
While we're talking about the aesthetics of "::" and ":", I like how a
line with a
On 04/02/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Holdermans wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Brian wrote:
> >
> >> I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that
> >> originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be
> >>
Hello Marco,
Saturday, February 04, 2006, 4:39:23 PM, you wrote:
MAFdA> Hello.
MAFdA> English is not my native language (I'm Portuguese).
MAFdA> The haskell-cafe mailing list is usually very active and subscribers
MAFdA> do help each other, so I believe you will not have any trouble in
MAFdA> fin
Hello raptor,
Saturday, February 04, 2006, 7:06:39 PM, you wrote:
r> does Haskell have a property lists. Like Lisp ?
r> any pointer to examples ?
no. Haskell data values don't carry any invisible information besides
of lazyness. in this aspect Haskell is like other compiled languages
like C wher
Actually, one of the main reasons that we chose (:) is that that's what
Miranda used. So, at the time at least, it was not entirely clear what
the "de facto universal inter-language standard" was.
In any case, I agree with Stefan regarding Haskell Prime!
-Paul
Stefan Holdermans wrote:
Br
Stefan Holdermans wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian wrote:
I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that
originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be
needed whereas list cons is often needed, but now that it is
regarded as good practi
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:15:47PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that
originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be
needed whereas list cons is often needed, but now that it is
regarded as good practic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian wrote:
I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that
originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be needed
whereas list cons is often needed, but now that it is regarded as good
practice to put a type annotatio
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
> >I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
> >expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
> >a lot of nested parentheses.
>
> To me, ($) helping me to avoid w
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:15:47PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
> I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that
> originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be needed
> whereas list cons is often needed, but now that it is regarded as good
> practice to put a type an
Taral wrote:
I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
a lot of nested parentheses.
To me, ($) helping me to avoid writing lots of parentheses, makes it
extremely useful. Actually: except for pas
Brian Hulley wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:52:20PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0
a1 (b0 b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Sur
On 2/4/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know why this strange associativity was chosen?
I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
a lot of nested parentheses.
It seems to be t
On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
I pointed out some problems with strict Haskell in a recent talk, but
I think it'd be worth underscoring them here in this forum.
Is the text of this talk or points raised in it available online
anywhere?
There i
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:52:20PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0
a1 (b0 b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be
much
On 2/4/06, raptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> does Haskell have a property lists. Like Lisp ?
> any pointer to examples ?
Not built in to the language. It's not hard to get the same
functionality though - I've attached a module that takes a (not
tremendously elegant) approach to the same thing,
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:52:20PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
> Hi -
> In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
> associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0 a1 (b0
> b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be much more useful
> i
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0 a1 (b0
b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be much more useful
if $ were defined as left associative so that it could be used to separa
does Haskell have a property lists. Like Lisp ?
any pointer to examples ?
tia
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Here are some even older discussions on the subject. I don't know if anyone
ever put them into a library or on the wiki.
Dominic.
http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-May/009784.html
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/2005-February/003143.html
___
What I wanted to make was a Deep / DeepCon Monad which called deepSeq or some
strategy. But I could not make it type check.
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
>> Weak uses seq to achieve WHNF for it's argument
>>
>>> newtype Weak a = WeakCon {runWeak :: a}
>>> mkWeak x = seq x (Weak
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Weak uses seq to achieve WHNF for it's argument
newtype Weak a = WeakCon {runWeak :: a}
mkWeak x = seq x (WeakCon x)
unsafeMkWeak x = WeakCon x
This doesn't actually do what you think it does. mkWeak and unsafeMkWeak are
the same function.
mkWeak 123 = seq 123 (W
Hello haskell-cafe,
i'm wrote new general i/o library called Streams. it's so great that i
hope it will eventually replace using Handles. i plan to present it in
Haskell list on Monday. in order to do it i wrote overview of library
facilities. the problem is that i'm not native english speaker and
Hello MaurĂcio,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 7:28:16 PM, you wrote:
M>I wonder if I could write a generic while based on your example:
while :: (a ->> IO a) -> (a -> Bool) -> IO ()
M>I'll probably learn something trying that.
i have about 5-10 imperative control structures defined in my
34 matches
Mail list logo