Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I've missed it, there is no typeclass for positive integers in
GHC. Is there any particular reason it doesn't exist?
Also, it seems Word would be a far better type in the likes of (!!),
length, etc. Is it just tradition that resulted in
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I've missed it, there is no typeclass for positive integers in
GHC. Is there any particular reason it doesn't exist?
Also, it seems Word would be a far better type in the likes of (!!),
length,
Simon Marlow wrote:
GHC 6.6 will allow this, because we added the -x flag (works just like
gcc's -x flag). eg. ghc -x hs foo.wibble will interpret foo.wibble as
a .hs file. I have an uncommitted patch for runghc that uses -x, I need
to test commit it.
Ah, that will be very useful,
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-03-24, Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I've missed it, there is no typeclass for positive integers in GHC.
Is there any particular reason it doesn't exist?
The number of useable operations is small, and checks for leaving
Hello Henning,
Friday, March 24, 2006, 3:55:55 PM, you wrote:
A new type, say Cardinal as in Modula, would document for the user of a
the only problem is what Haskell don't support automatic integral
types conversion. you will need to write a lot of `fromIntegral` calls
--
Best regards,
Fortunately there are already List functions like genericLength and
genericTake, which can handle such a number type. Shouldn't be Peano
numbers part of the standard libraries?
Natural numbers are being discussed as a possible part of the new
Haskell' standard.
On 2006-03-24, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-03-24, Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I've missed it, there is no typeclass for positive integers in GHC.
Is there any particular reason it doesn't exist?
The
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further on think of QuickCheck: A Cardinal type with an Arbitrary
instance would save us the (=0) condition and it would reduce the
number of tests that must be skipped because of non-fulfilled
conditions. Because I was
Hi
Is it possible to have an RSS feed for Planet Haskell? i.e. so I can
read all the Haskell related blogs with my feed reader without being
subscribed to all of them individually.
Thanks
Neil
On 3/23/06, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac Jones wrote:
Cool, if you think
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
Basically, my big objection is that it's hard to define many useful
operations on them that are statically safe.
Why not defining the Torsor class you suggested?
Any definition of Num a for instance leaves a whole bunch of unsafe
methods, or just
Hello,
On 3/23/06, Ben Rudiak-Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel McAllansmith wrote:
I can see the domain bounds check would be a problem in theory, but in
practice doesn't the type enforce that? Keeping Word positive costs nothing
because it just overflows. Wouldn't it be much the
On 2006-03-24, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
Basically, my big objection is that it's hard to define many useful
operations on them that are statically safe.
Why not defining the Torsor class you suggested?
Torsor is not quite the
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 17:37 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
Try this picture:
(s,(b,d))
|
| unassoc
v
((s,b), d)
| |
f | x | id
v v
((s',c), d)
|
| assoc
v
(s',(c,d))
The
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
Without breaking compatibility?
But class instances become invalid if the hierarchy is modified.
No, compatibility will be broken. Hopefully not for most uses -- I
don't think most people define new instances, and those that do will be
able to do so
Hi there,
I hope i have sent this in the right format - i gather i may have been rude
by sending it incorrectly - if this is still wrong give me a shout.
Anyway today i am enquiring about how to use the !! operator - i have looked
at Zvons Haskell refeernce and it says that it takes a list(
Neil Rutland neilrutland2 at hotmail.com writes:
[snip]
type Bob = [(Int, Int)]
newLine :: Bob
newLine = [(1,4)]
i have tried to use the follwing but it returns the error below it.
newLine !! 0 - (so that should give it the newLine list and try and return
the 1st element of the list)
Neil,
Basically in this example i would like to return the value 4
type Bob = [(Int, Int)]
newLine :: Bob
newLine = [(1,4)]
i have tried to use the follwing but it returns the error below it.
newLine !! 0 - (so that should give it the newLine list and try and
return the 1st element of the
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
Is it possible to have an RSS feed for Planet Haskell? i.e. so I can
read all the Haskell related blogs with my feed reader without being
subscribed to all of them individually.
Now there is an RSS 2.0 and an Atom feed.
___
18 matches
Mail list logo
