Chad Scherrer wrote:
Unfortunately, I was trying to give a simplification of the real
problem, where the monad is STM instead of []. Based on apfelmus's
observation of why they can't be isomorphic, I'm guessing I'm out of
luck.
On 2/3/07, Matt Revelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hReadUntilStr :: (Num a) = Handle - String - a - IO (String, Bool)
Is this the wrong way to think about the problem? If so, how should
it be handled? If not, any ideas on the implementation?
Sounds like this would grow into a full-fledged
On Feb 2, 2007, at 21:10 , Sergey Zaharchenko wrote:
Hello list,
Suppose I want show Nothing to return , and show (Just foo) return
show foo. I don't seem to be able to. Looks like I either have to use
some other function name, like `mShow', or have to import Prelude
hiding
Maybe,
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 10:13:17AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chad Scherrer wrote:
So in reality, I'm trying to construct something like
f :: (a - STM b) - STM (a - b)
Indeed, such an f most likely does not exist.
Yes, consider:
f readTVar :: STM (TVar c - c)
That would be pretty
On Jan 29, 2007, at 03:01 , Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
How do people stumble on Haskell?
Well, I didn't really stumble on it. I was at the 1987 meeting
when we decided to define Haskell.
But I stumbled on functional programming in the first place.
I had to learn it because it was part of a
I'll go for the shortest story...
I stumbled upon Simon's Composing Financial Contracts paper, Simon
was gracious enough to spend a fair bit of time on the phone with me.
The rest is history :-).
Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
___
Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 29, 2007, at 03:01 , Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
How do people stumble on Haskell?
Well, I didn't really stumble on it. I was at the 1987 meeting
when we decided to define Haskell.
But I stumbled on functional programming in the first
In about 93 or 94 a colleague had talked to me about this wierd
language called Haskell. At the time I hadn't listened because I was
sure that Eiffel was the future. Besides, he had showed me a GUI demo: a
calculator that took about half a second to register a button click. So
I concluded
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd read Eric Raymond's piece about being a hacker, where
he said to learn Lisp for the side effects.
Much better to learn Haskell for the side effects! ;-)
--
Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul == Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul because I was sure that Eiffel was the future.
You were right!
Paul It had become painfully
Paul obvious that Eiffel wasn't going anywhere.
Hm. Why do I make a living at it then? And why is there now an ECMA
standard for it?
Hi,
Following a recent thread on the Haskell' mailing list about the nusiance of
having to deal with commas in tuples (when cutting and pasting things to
re-order the elements there's always a pesky comma left over in the wrong
place), I've written up a proposal for a very simple syntax tweak
Hi Sergey,
You wrote:
Suppose I want show Nothing to return , and show (Just foo) return
show foo. I don't seem to be able to. Looks like I either have to use
some other function name, like `mShow'
That is correct.
Show instances are supposed to follow the convention that
show x is a Haskell
I have re-written SHA1 so that is more idiomatically haskell and it is easy to
see how it implements the specification. The only problem is I now have a
space leak. I can see where the leak is but I'm less sure what to do about
getting rid of it.
Here's the offending function:
pad :: [Word8]
I have re-written SHA1 so that is more idiomatically haskell and it is easy
to
see how it implements the specification. The only problem is I now have a
space leak. I can see where the leak is but I'm less sure what to do about
getting rid of it.
Here's the offending
hi Dominic
Explicit recursion works just fine for me and keeps things simple:
pad :: [Word8] - [Word8]
pad xs = pad' xs 0
pad' (x:xs) l = x : pad' xs (succ l)
pad' [] l = [0x80] ++ ps ++ lb
where
pl = (64-(l+9)) `mod` 64
ps = replicate pl 0x00
lb = i2osp 8 (8*l)
at the
Hi Matt,
hReadUntilStr - that is, a function that takes a Handle as an input
source, a String to match, and a Num a as the number of seconds to
wait before returning a (String, Bool) where the String is all the
text read from the Handle until either matching or timing out and the
Bool is true
I tried to install haskell-fastcgi (
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bringert/darcs/haskell-fastcgi/ ).
runghc Setup.hs configure --prefix=$HOME/extra
runghc -I$HOME/extra/include Setup.hs build
Preprocessing library fastcgi-2006.10.9...
FastCGI.hsc:50:21: error: fcgiapp.h: No such file or
Lennart,
Now you've made me curious. Which paper is this? Is it available for download
anywhere?
Mike
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
On Jan 29, 2007, at 03:01 , Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
How do people stumble on Haskell?
Well, I didn't really stumble on it. I was at the 1987 meeting
when we
A new implementation technique for applicative languages, David A.
Turner, Software — Practice and Experience, 9:31–49, 1979.
I'm not sure if it's available online.
-- Lennart
On Feb 4, 2007, at 01:14 , Michael Vanier wrote:
Lennart,
Now you've made me curious. Which paper is
On 2/4/07, keepbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to install haskell-fastcgi (
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bringert/darcs/haskell-fastcgi/
).
runghc Setup.hs configure --prefix=$HOME/extra
runghc -I$HOME/extra/include Setup.hs build
Preprocessing library fastcgi-2006.10.9...
Thanks for the responses.
Greg, your implementation looks useful but it's a little different
than what I was thinking (my apologies, I wasn't very clear).
In the implementation you posted, the timeout parameter is used to
limit the amount of time spent waiting to read an individual character
-
Hello Yitzchak!
Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 07:54:17PM +0200 you wrote:
Show instances are supposed to follow the convention that
show x is a Haskell expression that recreates x. In other words,
Show is mainly used for debugging, for simple serialization, and
for interactive use in a Haskell shell
22 matches
Mail list logo
