On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:07:54PM -0500, Jon Cast wrote:
I discovered this trick the other day, and didn't remember seeing it anywhere
as a cond implementation:
head $
[ e1 | cond1 ] ++
[ e2 | cond2 ] ++
[ e3 | cond3 ]
Cool!
Thanks for sharing it.
All the best,
andrea
Hello Andrew,
Thursday, June 28, 2007, 1:28:05 AM, you wrote:
Wow, wait a sec - case expressions are allowed to have guards too??
btw, it's used to implement boolean switches:
case () of
_ | a0 - 1
| a0 - -1
| otherwise - 0
--
Best regards,
Bulat
From my point of view it is a real shame that we don't have a reliable one yet!
What is with all that mumble of reusable code, interoperability and enhanced
stabilty if you can't use/proof it because it is a nightmare to use it in a
common project. Where common project means: windows and office
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:28:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In his system, the type of the matrix includes includes the matrix
size and dimensions, so invalid operations like improper matrix
multiplication can be rejected statically. And yet, his library
permits matrices read from files.
Read
2007/6/28, Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:28:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In his system, the type of the matrix includes includes the matrix
size and dimensions, so invalid operations like improper matrix
multiplication can be rejected statically. And
Jeremy Shaw wrote:
What is the status of the MIME Strike Force?
Currently it is on hold while I work on some other higher priority
projects. But, I do hope to get back to it soon. (Or, perhaps someone
else will have time to work on it).
OK. Good to hear it is still alive, if slumbering.
I
Paul Hudak wrote:
As an aside, looking at your code a bit closer, I see this:
(polygon [(x,y),(a,b),(x,y)]))
where
b = y + side * sin(pi/3)
a = x + side * cos(pi/3)
Something is not right here -- you repeat (x,y) as a vertex. Probably
the third vertex
Hi Daniil,
I had a look at the paper and associated code that Oleg refers to there is no
special parsing taking place:
From Vector/read-examples.hs:
v3 = do
let m1 = $(dAM [[1,2],[3,4]])
s - readFile Vector/example-data.txt
listMatRow (read s) (\(m2::AVector Double a) -
I'm trying to get the SOE graphics library to compile for Win32 using the
latest libraries.
I fixed a couple of imports, but in the file GraphicsTypes.hs, the functions
toInt/fromInt are used, which are now obsolete:
type Dimension = Int
toDimension:: Win32.INT - Dimension
Haskellians,
Once you have a polymorphic let, why do you need 'let' in the base language,
at all? Is it possible to formulate Haskell entirely with do-notation where
there is a standard monad for let environments? Probably this was all
discussed before in the design deliberations for the
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:16:37PM +0200, peterv wrote:
I'm trying to get the SOE graphics library to compile for Win32 using the
latest libraries.
I fixed a couple of imports, but in the file GraphicsTypes.hs, the functions
toInt/fromInt are used, which are now obsolete:
type Dimension =
toInt = id
fromInt = id
?
On 28 jun 2007, at 21.16, peterv wrote:
I’m trying to get the SOE graphics library to compile for Win32
using the latest libraries.
I fixed a couple of imports, but in the file GraphicsTypes.hs, the
functions toInt/fromInt are used, which are now obsolete:
On 28 jun 2007, at 21.17, Greg Meredith wrote:
Once you have a polymorphic let, why do you need 'let' in the base
language, at all? Is it possible to formulate Haskell entirely with
do-notation where there is a standard monad for let environments?
Probably this was all discussed before
Thomas,
Thanks for the reply. My thinking was that once you have a polymorphic form,
why single out any other? Less moving parts makes for less maintenance, etc.
Best wishes,
--greg
On 6/28/07, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28 jun 2007, at 21.17, Greg Meredith wrote:
Once
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Greg Meredith wrote:
Haskellians,
Once you have a polymorphic let, why do you need 'let' in the base
language, at all? Is it possible to formulate Haskell entirely with
do-notation where there is a standard monad for let environments?
Probably this was all
On 28 jun 2007, at 22.02, Greg Meredith wrote:
Thomas,
Thanks for the reply. My thinking was that once you have a
polymorphic form, why single out any other? Less moving parts makes
for less maintenance, etc.
Ok, sorry if my reply seemed harsh. You are of course right, that
having
i have written a small haskell program to solve a problem many users
of freebsd may have - knowing what ports have been updated after a
daily/weekly etc cvsup. this is a trivial bit of coding hardly worth
attention, but if it might be of use to you, you can find it here:
17 matches
Mail list logo
