Let me point out another concern with autolifting: it makes it easy to
overlook sharing. In the pure world, sharing is unobservable; not so
when effects are involved.
Let me take the example using the code posted in your first message:
t1 = let x = 1 + 2 in x + x
The term t1 is polymorphic
Thank you for highlighting these problems; I should really test my own code
more thoroughly. After reading these most recent examples, the translation
to
existing monads is definitely too neat, and a lot of semantics of the monad
are
'defaulted' on. In particular for the probability monad examples
On 12/11/2010 07:49, Mitar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use maskUninterruptible in GHC 7, but that is not generally
recommended,
Maybe there should be some function like maskUninterruptibleExceptUser
which would mask everything except
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:39:40 +0100, Michael Litchard mich...@schmong.org
wrote:
I think I may have borked things good using cygwin. I want to remove
it and do a clean install of haskell platform w/out cygwin. What do I
need to do to make sure all configuration files have been removed?
There
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Neil Brown nc...@kent.ac.uk wrote:
On 15/11/10 15:23, Dmitry Astapov wrote:
[snip]
This is slightly OT, but having used WinBUGS a little, I am very pleased to
see this listed as a project. WinBUGS is a commendable piece of work, but
is really showing its
Hallo,
let me take this simple function: (2*).
If I check its type
:t (2*)
I'll obtain
(2*) :: (Num a) = a - a
But now it suffices to write
g = (2*)
and check
:t g
to obtain
g :: Integer - Integer
One more combination, now I write
h x = (2*) x
and check once more
:t h
to get
h :: (Num a) = a - a
On Nov 17, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Jerzy M wrote:
So my question is: why (in this second example) Integer is inferred?
What makes a difference?
I think there are two things going on. First, the monomorphism
restriction is causing the types to be different. I'm not sure why
Integer -
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 19:09:16, Jerzy M wrote:
Hallo,
let me take this simple function: (2*).
If I check its type
:t (2*)
I'll obtain
(2*) :: (Num a) = a - a
But now it suffices to write
g = (2*)
and check
:t g
to obtain
g :: Integer - Integer
One more combination, now I
Now of course, the followup question is what the heck is a
monomorphism restriction and why would I want it?
Here is a simple example:
expensiveComputation :: Num a = a - a
expensiveComputation x = ... something that takes a long time to compute ...
ghci :t (expensiveComputation 2 *)
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 20:19:17, Ryan Ingram wrote:
Now of course, the followup question is what the heck is a
monomorphism restriction and why would I want it?
Here is a simple example:
snip
But if you give g the more general type signature, the
expensiveComputation has to get run
On 17 November 2010 15:47, Henk-Jan van Tuyl hjgt...@chello.nl wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:39:40 +0100, Michael Litchard mich...@schmong.org
wrote:
I think I may have borked things good using cygwin. I want to remove
it and do a clean install of haskell platform w/out cygwin. What do I
I'm writing an interpreter for a call by need language and have been doing a
direct implementation of the Launchbury semantics. My problem is that in the
variable rule, an alpha conversion is done that, as far as I understand, is
going to hinder any tail call optimization.
I realize that the
As a starting point I would suggest
Peter Sestoft : Deriving a lazy abstract machine, Journal of Functional
Programming 7(3), 1997
( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.50.4314 )
Different abstract machines for call-by-need evaluation are built
starting from Launchburys
Awesome! Thank you.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David Sabel
sa...@ki.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
As a starting point I would suggest
Peter Sestoft : Deriving a lazy abstract machine, Journal of Functional
Programming 7(3), 1997
(
Cygwin is fine for development - the shell is Bash (this can probably
be changed), so it is much more capable than the MS shell. Personally
I've never needed to uninstall Cygwin, if things get in a mess
re-running the Cygwin installer seems to sort things out.
One caveat is that if you want to
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:38:54 +0100, Stephen Tetley
stephen.tet...@gmail.com wrote:
One caveat is that if you want to build Haskell bindings to C
libraries, MinGW+MSys is preferable to Cygwin. Cygwin shared libraries
depend on the cygwin.dll which generally isn't what you want for
bindings.
I am able to use System.Cmd (system) to invoke a shell command
and interpret the results.
Please see the code below that works okay for one such command.
(I invoke a program, passing two args.)
I am wondering how to generalize this to do likewise for a
series of commands, where the varying args
Welcome to issue 159 of the HWN, a newsletter covering developments in
the [1]Haskell community in the week of November 07 - 13.
We have a new GHC to celebrate! On November 16 the GHC team announced
the [2]release of GHC 7.0.1. Plenty of goodness here, with many bug
fixes and
On 11/17/2010 09:56 PM, Daniel Santa Cruz wrote:
Curious about the most active members of the #haskell IRC channel? Out
of around 28K utterances in the channel this week, 24% of them where
spoken by the top 5 most active members. Not suprisingly, the dear
lambdabot is at the top
David Sankel wrote:
I'm writing an interpreter for a call by need language... Is anyone
aware of any papers out there that go into detail on the construction
of an actual interpreter?
You might find the following call-by-need interpreter useful:
20 matches
Mail list logo
