Mads Lindstrøm mads_lindstr...@yahoo.dk writes:
I do not get this explanation, could you expand? I would have thought it
should be: difference? Because SQLAlchemy knows about the relationships
(not relations, but relation_ships_), it do not have to explicitly join
on foreign keys..
I think
You know, this might be the right time to start expanding our
vocabulary beyond seven bits. Since we're likely to keep mappend
around as an alias for some time, people would have a grace period to
adjust.
How about U+2295 (circle with plus inside it)?
Or, if we would like to stick to the
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Ketil Maldeke...@malde.org wrote:
You know, this might be the right time to start expanding our
vocabulary beyond seven bits. Since we're likely to keep mappend
around as an alias for some time, people would have a grace period to
adjust.
How about U+2295
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting John Meacham j...@repetae.net:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something
like () or (+) would be better.
I tend to agree. Moreover, and I realise this may be a losing battle,
I want (++) to be the generic
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jochem Berndsenjoc...@functor.nl wrote:
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
I tend to agree. Moreover, and I realise this may be a losing battle,
I want (++) to be the generic operator.
I totally agree.
So do I.
David.
___
As a side note, (allowing seq and unsafePerformIO if necessary) is it
possible to implement a map that preserves cycles (instead of
transparently replacing them with infinite copies? Not horribly
useful, but would be quite cute.
Baltasar Trancon y Widemann gave a talk on a generalized
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 18:31 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Of course in Text.PrettyPrint,
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 18:59 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:18:32AM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On IA32 structs/unions passed as parameters go by value on the stack.
For structs/unions as function results, they are stored into a
caller-allocated area on the stack,
Hi
I'm just trying out gtk2hs for the first time and I quite like it.
However, for some reason my tray icon (...Gtk.Display.StatusIcon)
disappears after a split second when I run my program using GHCi.
What's the reason for this? Perhaps this is even a bug? It works just
fine if I compile an
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best thing.
;)
Jules
___
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Jules Beanju...@jellybean.co.uk wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0400, a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Quoting
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with anything
better than mappend! ;)
-Ed
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0400, a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not
equals from other languages. Personally I'm in favor of +, simply
because it looks
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with anything
better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from
I suggest you all add your name and vote here:
http://doodle.com/4yrfd7qaw5man3rm
Perhaps we'll find one of the options is clearly in favor.
Martijn.
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for
I'm sure there's some important historical reason... but why isn't ''
used in something more prominent than the fgl package? I understand
why it's not used for bitwise AND in Data.Bits (I assume because the
corresponding bitwise '|' operator isn't available), but all the other
single-character
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from other
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Jules Bean ju...@jellybean.co.uk wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best
Hey Marc,
On 30 jun 2009, at 19:52, Marc Weber wrote:
Is there anyone interested in helping building a library which
a) let's you define kind of model of you data
b) let's you store you model in any backend (maybe a relational
database)
c) does static checking of your queries at compilation
2009/7/1 Matthias Görgens matthias.goerg...@googlemail.com:
As a side note, (allowing seq and unsafePerformIO if necessary) is it
possible to implement a map that preserves cycles (instead of
transparently replacing them with infinite copies? Not horribly
useful, but would be quite cute.
Hi,
I tried to compile an app that uses sqlite3.dll with the -optl-static
flag and the error message is:
C:\ghc\ghc-6.10.3\gcc-lib\ld.exe: cannot find -lsqlite3
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Yeah, I'm not suggesting going via Storable (for all those reasons),
just extending the FFI to say tuples of FFI types get passed as the
corresponding C ABI structs. All the magic to match the current platform
C ABI then lives in the compiler.
Agree. The tuples idea is far better than my first
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.ukwrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing.
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be
the
Hi Andrew,
you will find it there but it's written in German.
http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2008/1755/
Regards,
Martin.
Andrew Hunter schrieb:
2009/7/1 Matthias Görgens matthias.goerg...@googlemail.com:
As a side note, (allowing seq and unsafePerformIO if necessary) is it
possible
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Duncan Coutts duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk
wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing.
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer.
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:55:39AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be the
binary operator, and mappend as a synonym for it. I'll import the Monoid
Ross Paterson wrote:
Generalizing (++) will break some Haskell 98 code, e.g.
append = (++)
I think that's a show-stopper.
Is the monomorphism restriction the only situation in which stuff breaks?
Martijn.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
you will find it there but it's written in German.
Yes. But at least there's an English abstract.
Matthias.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
2009/7/1 Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl:
I suggest you all add your name and vote here:
http://doodle.com/4yrfd7qaw5man3rm
Perhaps we'll find one of the options is clearly in favor.
Doesn't doodle allow multiple choice tests? Requiring to pick only
one is kind of
2009/7/1 Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from other languages.
Forget Pascal: think of it as a diamond.
Yep, it's
2009/7/1 David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
I like this thinking as well. I kind of wish Haskell didn't overload
operators to begin with but oh well :-)
Just because the compiler can figure out what I mean because it has a great
type system, I might not be able to figure out what I mean a year
Thomas Schilling wrote:
Haddock should allow documentation on instance
declarations...
+1!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi,
It's not possible to build the Happy glr examples using GHC 6.10.3 and Happy
1.18.4:
ce...@unique:~/.cabal/packages/
hackage.haskell.org/happy/1.18.4/happy-1.18.4/examples/glr$ make
make loop CMD=run
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/cetin/.cabal/packages/
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Bryan O'Sullivanb...@serpentine.com wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b.
I wonder if other people are of a similar opinion, and if so, whether
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 02:22:36PM -0300, Maurício wrote:
Yeah, I'm not suggesting going via Storable (for all those reasons),
just extending the FFI to say tuples of FFI types get passed as the
corresponding C ABI structs. All the magic to match the current platform
C ABI then lives in the
This is implemented in Data.Supply
(http://hackage.haskell.org/package/value-supply). The difference is:
Data.Unique is *globally* unique, while Data.Supply is only locally
unique. I ran into problems with this when writing tests.
2009/6/30 Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 30,
Hello Duncan,
Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:18:32 AM, you wrote:
Actually passing structs and unions as arguments or function results is
specified by the C ABI. See for example the IA32 ABI:
http://www.caldera.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf
linked from the LSB:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 01:26 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Duncan,
Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 4:18:32 AM, you wrote:
Actually passing structs and unions as arguments or function results is
specified by the C ABI. See for example the IA32 ABI:
Hello Duncan,
Thursday, July 2, 2009, 2:57:29 AM, you wrote:
You don't need it to be the same between Windows and Unix, it just has
to be standard on each platform, which it is. There are really only two
ABIs in common use on x86, the System V ABI and the MS one (which apart
from the stdcall
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 03:01 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Duncan,
Thursday, July 2, 2009, 2:57:29 AM, you wrote:
You don't need it to be the same between Windows and Unix, it just has
to be standard on each platform, which it is. There are really only two
ABIs in common use on
Do you imagine an objection on creating a ticket asking for
something like CComplex on Foreign.C.Types?
No, I would like it. Also add a 'CBool' that maps to the calling
convention for _Bool while you are at it.
Here is a draft. Please comment:
Proposal: complement Foreign.C.Types
A few
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:05:06PM -0300, Maurício wrote:
Do you imagine an objection on creating a ticket asking for
something like CComplex on Foreign.C.Types?
No, I would like it. Also add a 'CBool' that maps to the calling
convention for _Bool while you are at it.
Here is a draft.
Obviously `mappend` is good enough as it is.
Choosing (+) or () are just for prettifying code.
Generalizing (++) not only makes the code prettier, but also brings Monoid
into the Prelude.
You can either Do It Right(tm), or be conservative and try to maintain
backwards compatibility as much as
* CComplexFloat, CComplexDouble
Related to 'float complex' and 'double complex'.
We need a way to actually examine the values, since 'fromIntegral' won't
work. I think the easiest way is to actually reuse Complex which is
already in Haskell 98, defining
What do you think of
newtype
In Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Thomas Schillingnomin...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/7/1 David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
Just because the compiler can figure out what I mean because it has a great
type system, I might not be able to figure out what I mean a year from now
if I see ++
I emphatically second this.. (except for using vim instead of emacs)
-Max
On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:03 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
I would love to have a standalone Mac OS X compatible build to try.
As it stands, I have not been successful getting a Cocoa/Carbon GTK
running on Leopard, and
47 matches
Mail list logo
