On Jan 10, 2008 1:36 PM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> Thursday, January 10, 2008, 4:25:20 PM, you wrote:
>
> "instance Num a => A a"
>
> > Mean the same thing as
>
> > "instance A (forall a.Num a=>a)"
>
> programmers going from OOP world always forget that classes in
On Jan 10, 2008 1:25 PM, Nicholls, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your response, I think you helped me on one of my previous
> abberations.
>
> Hmmmthis all slightly does my head inon one hand we have
> typesthen type classes (which appear to be a relation defined on
> typ
Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The surest thing to make people switch is to make them not aware of
> it, i.e. make things look exactly like in C, with incremental updates
> of the same variable and everything, while still retaining a purely
> functional semantic under the hood.
>
>
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Laziness and purity together help with equational reasoning, compiler
transformations, less obscure bugs, better compositionality etc.
Although it could be argued that laziness is the cause of some very
obscure bugs...
Niko
"Sebastian Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You make less bugs with that language? Fucking learn to write C++!
>
> Excuse me?
>
A probable exclamation of a pointy-haired boss, that is. What I wanted
to say is that if you tell such a guy that you'll make less bugs in
language X, he would
> > class A a
> > type T = (forall x.Num x=>x)
> > instance A T
>
> "type" declares a synonym, like #define in C - but working only on
types.
> So, essentially, you wrote
Yep that's fine..
>
> instance A (forall x.Num x => x)
>
Yep
>
> which is not very Haskelly.
>
Hmmm...
>
>
> > I a
Hello Mark,
Thursday, January 10, 2008, 4:25:20 PM, you wrote:
"instance Num a =>> A a"
> Mean the same thing as
> "instance A (forall a.Num a=>a)"
programmers going from OOP world always forget that classes in Haskell
doesn't the same as classes in C++. *implementation* of this instance
requi
> class A a
> type T = (forall x.Num x=>x)
> instance A T
"type" declares a synonym, like #define in C - but working only on types. So,
essentially, you wrote
instance A (forall x.Num x => x)
which is not very Haskelly.
> I am simply trying to state that all members of typeclass Num are of
> t
Thanks for your response, I think you helped me on one of my previous
abberations.
Hmmmthis all slightly does my head inon one hand we have
typesthen type classes (which appear to be a relation defined on
types)then existential types...which now appear not to be treated
quite in th
On Jan 10, 2008 1:03 PM, Nicholls, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should be straight forwardsimplest example is...
>
> class A a
>
> data D = D1
>
> instance A D
>
> fine.D is declared to be a member of type class A
>
> what about.
>
> class A a
>
> type T = (forall x.Num x=>x)
>
Should be straight forwardsimplest example is...
class A a
data D = D1
instance A D
fine.D is declared to be a member of type class A
what about.
class A a
type T = (forall x.Num x=>x)
instance A T
error!...
" Illegal polymorphic or qualified type: forall x. (Num x) => x
On Jan 10, 2008 12:41 PM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sebastian Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > For those who don't know him, Tim Sweeney is the main programmer
> > > > behind Epic Games's popular Unreal Engine. When he talks, many
> > > > game developers will listen.
Johan Tibell wrote:
Adding the following to my lighttpd config (on Ubuntu Feisty) solves
the problem from the server side:
external configuration files
## mimetype mapping
# change mime type for haskell source files so they get displayed
# inside the browser
include_shell "/usr/share/light
2008/1/10, Alfonso Acosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jan 8, 2008 1:28 PM, David Waern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear Haskell community,
> >
> > I'm proud to announce the release of Haddock 2.0.0.0!
>
> Great! I already tested a dracs spanshot before the release and seemed
> to work well with TH
"Sebastian Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For those who don't know him, Tim Sweeney is the main programmer
> > > behind Epic Games's popular Unreal Engine. When he talks, many
> > > game developers will listen.
> > >
> > We will dream, most likely.
> >
> > > Perhaps more importantly, any
On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nick Rolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://morpheus.cs.ucdavis.edu/papers/sweeny.pdf
> >
> > He refers to Haskell and its strengths (and some of its weaknesses)
> > quite a bit.
> >
> > For those who don't know him, Ti
"Nick Rolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://morpheus.cs.ucdavis.edu/papers/sweeny.pdf
>
> He refers to Haskell and its strengths (and some of its weaknesses)
> quite a bit.
>
> For those who don't know him, Tim Sweeney is the main programmer
> behind Epic Games's popular Unreal Engine. When
Hello,
I have little practice in Haskell. And I look forward for suggestions on how
to improve the code. Code is not working: some definitions are missed.
The goal of the code is to implement the evaluator for untyped lambda-calculus.
The main problem is how to display each step of reduction? More
On 10/01/2008, Galchin Vasili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been reading with great interested Tim Sweeney's slides on the
> Next Generation Programming Language. Does anybody know his email address?
Vasili is referring to these slides, which will probably interest many
peopl
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Ketil Malde wrote:
> > I think you mean that they cannot be bottom if you want
> > to compare them for equality. Yes.
>
> See above. What is the precise term for describing this? Structural
> equality?
>
> On the other hand, some bottoms are exceptions, you may be able to
>
"Yitzchak Gale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In the semantic domain there is one bottom.
>> In Haskell there are many expressions that represent bottom.
>> One cannot test those for equality.
If we are being pedantic, I can define
data Foo = Foo
instance Eq Foo where _ == _ = True
Adding the following to my lighttpd config (on Ubuntu Feisty) solves
the problem from the server side:
external configuration files
## mimetype mapping
# change mime type for haskell source files so they get displayed
# inside the browser
include_shell "/usr/share/lighttpd/create-mime.assign
I wrote:
>> Like nearly all programming languages, Haskell implements
>> the standard IEEE behavior for floating point numbers.
>> That leads to some mathematical infelicities that are
>> especially irking to us in Haskell, but the consensus was
>> that it is best to follow the standard.
Jules Bea
Cristian Baboi wrote:
> I think this should be put this way:
> Bottom is a part of the semantic domain which is not Haskell.
Rather, something outside Haskell that describes
what Haskell programs mean. Yes.
> In the semantic domain there is one bottom.
> In Haskell there are many expressions that
Cristian Baboi wrote:
>>> and there is no such thing as "the same bottom" right ?
I wrote:
>> Yes and no.
> Semantically, Yes and No is bottom ?
Yes and no.
-Yitz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/li
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Mitar wrote:
Why is 0/0 (which is NaN) > 1 == False and at the same time 0/0 < 1 ==
False. This means that 0/0 == 1? No, because also 0/0 == 1 == False.
I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even co
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:23:51 +0200, Yitzchak Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cristian Baboi wrote:
and there is no such thing as "the same bottom" right ?
Yes and no.
Semantically, Yes and No is bottom ?
Information from NOD32
This message was checked by NOD32 Antiviru
Cristian Baboi wrote:
> and there is no such thing as "the same bottom" right ?
Yes and no. Semantically, every bottom is the same.
However, the Haskell Report makes bottom an explicit
exceptional case. Compilers are allowed to do whatever
they want with bottoms, including different results for
di
and there is no such thing as "the same bottom" right ?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:13:05 +0200, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"Cristian Baboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think it's a bug.
Here is why:
let f = (\x -> x/0) in f 0 == f 0
Referential transparency say that f 0 must eq
Mitar wrote:
> > Why is 0/0 (which is NaN) > 1 == False and at the same time 0/0 < 1 ==
> > False. This means that 0/0 == 1? No, because also 0/0 == 1 == False.
> > I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
> > mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even compared t
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:48:51 +0200, Benja Fallenstein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mitar,
On Jan 10, 2008 9:22 AM, Mitar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even compared to 1.
My und
"Cristian Baboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's a bug.
> Here is why:
>
> let f = (\x -> x/0) in f 0 == f 0
>
> Referential transparency say that f 0 must equal to f 0, but in this
> case it is not. :-)
I think you are wrong. Referential transparency says that you can
replace any oc
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:48:51 +0200, Benja Fallenstein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mitar,
On Jan 10, 2008 9:22 AM, Mitar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even compared to 1.
My und
Hi Mitar,
On Jan 10, 2008 9:22 AM, Mitar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
> mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even compared to 1.
My understanding is that common mathematical practice is that
comparing an undefined value
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:22:03 +0200, Mitar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Why is 0/0 (which is NaN) > 1 == False and at the same time 0/0 < 1 ==
False. This means that 0/0 == 1? No, because also 0/0 == 1 == False.
I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
mathematic
Hi!
Why is 0/0 (which is NaN) > 1 == False and at the same time 0/0 < 1 ==
False. This means that 0/0 == 1? No, because also 0/0 == 1 == False.
I understand that proper mathematical behavior would be that as 0/0 is
mathematically undefined that 0/0 cannot be even compared to 1.
There is probably
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
