Hi
I sometimes have a function definition similar to this:
myFunction x@(Constructor1 _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
myFunction x@(Constructor2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
which in my eyes is not very elegant and easy to type. Is there an easier way to
switch on the different constructors of a type
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:09:10AM +0100, Stefan Aeschbacher wrote:
Hi
I sometimes have a function definition similar to this:
myFunction x@(Constructor1 _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
myFunction x@(Constructor2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
myFunction [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ...
myFunction [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Hi Stefan,
myFunction x@(Constructor1 _*) = ...
myFunction x@(Constructor2 _*) = ...
myFunction x@(Constructor1 {}) =
myFunction x@(Constructor2 {}) =
myFunction2 (Constructor1 _* a _*) = ...
could be possible as long as the pattern is non-ambiguous (in this
case, only one variable with
2007/1/15, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:09:10AM +0100, Stefan Aeschbacher wrote:
Hi
I sometimes have a function definition similar to this:
myFunction x@(Constructor1 _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
myFunction x@(Constructor2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) = ...
myFunction [EMAIL
Hi,
On 30/12/06, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any tools which I can use to render .lhs files readable? I'm fine
with having them converted into documented source (i.e. source code embedded in
documentation) or as pure Haskell source (but without the huge
On 1/15/07, Doaitse Swierstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Values that live as elements in data have to be data themselves, and
thus have to be of a type that has kind *.
But the example I give doesn't have a value of kind * - * living in
data. The constructor is nullary, only the parameter to the
On 1/15/07, Jim Apple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data OK' (x :: *) where
OK' :: OK' x
type Fine' = OK' Maybe
type Evil' = OK' (forall (f :: *) . f)
Correction: that Maybe should obviously be something of kind *, like Bool.
Jim
___
Haskell-Cafe
Meng Wang wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thank you for starting the thread. We (Martin Sulzmann and me)
proposed a type class extension which allows modular extension of
superclasses (a complement of subclass extension). The idea has been
shown to be particularly useful in (but not limited to) encodings of
I want to learn how to use FFI with Win32, so I'm looking through the GHC
source code. I encountered the function
terminateProcess :: ProcessHandle - IO ()
terminateProcess ph = do
withProcessHandle_ ph $ \p_ -
case p_ of
ClosedHandle _ - return p_
OpenHandle h - do
Jim Apple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
C, x : k1 |- y : *
---
C |- (\forall x : k1 . y) : *
I'd expect
C, x : k1 |- y : k2
---
C |- (\forall x : k1 . y) : k2
Is there a foundational or
On 1/15/07, Chung-chieh Shan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider it a foundational reason. You seem to want
(forall (f :: * - *) . f)
to have kind
* - *.
But that means that I should be able to apply it to a type, say Int, to
get a type
(forall (f :: * - *) . f) Int.
What
I am very new to haskell.
my project is to solve Missionary and Cannibal
this is what I have been given :
1. 3 Missionary and 3 Cannibal .
2. 1 boat.
3. Max passengers=2.
4. RULE: at any given time number of cannibal cannot exceed number of
missionary
5. I need to move all the
Jim Apple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
(forall (f :: * - *) . f) Int.
What values inhabit this type?
The same ones that inhabit (forall (f :: * - *) . f Int); that is,
none (or _|_). I don't see the uninhabitability of a type as
This might not be the solution you are looking for, but a mathematical
approach to solving this problem is explained by Edsge W. Dijkstra in a
video at
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/video-audio/video-audio.html
Click on The Power of Counting Arguments
Met vriendelijke groet,
14 matches
Mail list logo
