On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
[...] Apart from some
basic combinators in Control.Monad or the definitions of monad
transformers, how much of what you write in do-blocks is applicable to
some generic Monad instance as opposed to a specific Monad?
Well, if my
Johan Brinch brin...@gmail.com writes:
Can GHC eliminate one of two equal ByteStrings, when they are compared
and turns out to be equal?
Not in general, there is no guarantee that a is identical to b, just
because a == b.
Say i have a map, ByteString - Int.
Data.Map.Map ByteString Int
I
Hello,
TL;DR: If you have some time try emacs, the viper / vimpulse plugins are
pretty good and the editor is awesome in general. Haskell indentation is
good.
I was a hardcore vim user and switched to emacs because the REPL for
clojure was just aweful in vim. I am using the vi keybindings
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Vincent Hanquez t...@snarc.org wrote:
I think cute is good enough, and heathmatlock's lamb da, a good and simple
name with a funny pun, definitely made me smile, and hope that's something i
see on haskell tshirts soon ;-)
Done.
On 14 December 2011 20:21, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
[...] Apart from some
basic combinators in Control.Monad or the definitions of monad
transformers, how much of what you write in do-blocks is applicable to
Paul Koerbitz paul.koerb...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
TL;DR: If you have some time try emacs, the viper / vimpulse plugins are
pretty good and the editor is awesome in general. Haskell indentation is
good.
Not to go too off topic, but I'm not sure people are aware there's
another Vim
Hi,
It has been on my todo list for some time now. I'd like to write a GTD tool
that has dependency tracking support. Haskell seems like a good choice for
this. I was wondering if there has been any past attempts with this?
One thing that has been bothering me has been this - the persistence of
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, C K Kashyap ckkash...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It has been on my todo list for some time now. I'd like to write a GTD tool
that has dependency tracking support. Haskell seems like a good choice for
this. I was wondering if there has been any past attempts with
If what bothers you is writing SQL code (and I could easily understand),
you may wanna check persistent. It uses Template Haskell to generate for
you the necessary marshalling and tables definition, so you just handle
haskell datatypes.
(^^ Michael just outposted [1] me).
For json serialization,
I got mixed up with something else : forget about enumerator-based version
of aeson, it does not exist.
2011/12/14 Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com
If what bothers you is writing SQL code (and I could easily understand),
you may wanna check persistent. It uses Template Haskell to generate for
Is the haskell-mode that comes out of the box with emacs (v 23.3) the one
you folk use or do you use something more specific/uptodate? How to find
out? [There should be a haskell-mode-version...]
To the folks from the (hesitating) vi-camp: Whatever you use, please take
time to familiarize
Excerpts from Michael Snoyman's message of Wed Dec 14 14:34:30 +0100 2011:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, C K Kashyap ckkash...@gmail.com wrote:
Definite *don't* use read/show: if you make any updates to your data
structures, all old files will be lost.
Well you can work around it:
data
Yves Parès wrote:
(^^ Michael just outposted [1] me).
[1] I don't know if there is such a word. Sorry, I'm french.
If there wasn't before, there is now. It's a great word!
(Et je suis en effet un anglophone.)
-Yitz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On 14/12/11 13:59, Marc Weber wrote:
Excerpts from Michael Snoyman's message of Wed Dec 14 14:34:30 +0100 2011:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, C K Kashyapckkash...@gmail.com wrote:
Definite *don't* use read/show: if you make any updates to your data
structures, all old files will be lost.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Claude Heiland-Allen cla...@goto10.org wrote:
On 14/12/11 13:59, Marc Weber wrote:
Excerpts from Michael Snoyman's message of Wed Dec 14 14:34:30 +0100 2011:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, C K Kashyapckkash...@gmail.com wrote:
Definite *don't* use
2011/12/14 Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com
For brutal binary serialization, you may like binary or cereal (I don't
know the dis/advantages of both, except that the last time I checked,
cereal only handled strict bytestrings).
BTW, if we can cope with strict bytestrings (if we don't have a
On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Don't be silly. The purpose of some and many is to be used with combinators
that are expected to fail sometimes. If you use them with combinators that
always succeed, of course
On Dec 14, 2011 1:33 AM, Ian-Woo Kim ianwoo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Ivan,
I modified hxournal. New source code is now on github repository.
https://www.github.com/wavewave/hxournal
Are these changes reflected on Hackage?
amindfv / Tom
Now it has a very rudimentary config file. The config
On 14 December 2011 15:02, Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
The 'derive' package? The problem is that it has a lot of dependencies you
maybe don't need if you jut want serialization, plus it relies on TH so it
grows both compilation time and executable size.
Well you can use the stand
I think not. The version in hackage is still hxournal-0.5.0.0. Unless,
of course,
you can update a package that's already been submitted without increasing the
version number. Is that possible? (I actually don't know)
Cheers,
Ivan.
On 14 December 2011 16:44, Tom Murphy amin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:53:38PM +0100, Ivan Perez wrote:
I think not. The version in hackage is still hxournal-0.5.0.0. Unless,
of course,
you can update a package that's already been submitted without increasing the
version number. Is that possible? (I actually don't know)
Thankfully, it
My fellow haskellers,
I wrote a very simple library to send SMSs using the DiamondCard VoIP provider.
At the present time, it uses the HTTP interface to contact the provider
(there's a SOAP interface, but I haven't been able to make it play along
with shoap).
The current API is quite
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
This way users of the classes will know whether their type has
well-defined instance for some and many or not.
But that's *precisely* what the Alternative class is already for! If you
are writing an Alternative
On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
This way users of the classes will know whether their type has well-defined
instance for some and many or not.
But that's precisely what the
Well I do welcome such discussion.
This list should be for those of us who are perhaps not so brilliant or
knowledgeable.
One of my biggest concerns with Haskell is that the complexity of some of the
interfaces requires quite extraordinary demands on the user to use them
correctly. I am not
On 14 December 2011 15:22, Claude Heiland-Allen cla...@goto10.org wrote:
I ran into this very nightmare in one project, and was recommend safecopy
[0] by someone on the #haskell IRC channel. I've not (yet) used it but it
looks very nice!
[0] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/safecopy
Or
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Martin DeMello martindeme...@gmail.com wrote:
The vim autoindent for haskell is really bad :( Is there a better
indent.hs file floating around somewhere? Alternatively, is the emacs
haskell mode better enough that it's worth my time learning my way
around emacs
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the haskell-mode that comes out of the box with emacs (v 23.3) the one
you folk use or do you use something more specific/uptodate? How to find
out? [There should be a haskell-mode-version...]
To the folks from the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, James Cook mo...@deepbondi.net wrote:
So a case could be made that, just as forever (Just 1) being nonsensical
doesn't invalidate instance Monad Maybe, some (Just 1) being nonsensical
doesn't invalidate instance Alternative Maybe. And on the other hand, a
case
Ok, sorry for the spam, accidentaly hit the send button =/.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, James Cook mo...@deepbondi.net wrote:
So a case could be made that, just as forever (Just 1) being nonsensical
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
But that's precisely what the Alternative class is already for! If you are
writing an Alternative instance at all, then you are asserting that it must
be possible and reasonable to replicate the existing behaviour of some and
many.
The current definition says that some and many should be the least
solutions of the equations
some v = (:) $ v * many v
many v = some v | pure []
We could relax that to just requiring that they satisfy these equations
(which I think is what John wants). In that case there would be
On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Ross Paterson wrote:
The current definition says that some and many should be the least
solutions of the equations
some v = (:) $ v * many v
many v = some v | pure []
We could relax that to just requiring that they satisfy these equations
(which I
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:19:34AM +, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Ross Paterson wrote:
The current definition says that some and many should be the least
solutions of the equations
some v = (:) $ v * many v
many v = some v | pure []
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
The current definition says that some and many should be the least
solutions of the equations
some v = (:) $ v * many v
many v = some v | pure []
We could relax that to just requiring that they satisfy these
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:01, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
Also, frankly, I haven't seen much of a sign that the community itself has
some kind of deep understanding of some/many that I lack. People have been
giving me different answers to my question, many of which are not
On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
Although I'm still not sure why I would be using these operations in
maybe or list.
You probably wouldn't use these operations directly on Maybe or List, but the
whole point is that when you are using a typeclass you have cannot assume that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:36:52AM +, Antoine Latter wrote:
This seems to generalize to list:
some [] = []
some xs = [cycle xs]
many [] = [[]]
many xs = [cycle xs]
More like
some [] = []
some (x:xs) = repeat (repeat x)
many [] = [[]]
many (x:xs) =
On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
These statements are not mutually logically consistent, and leave me
wondering if Applicative and/or Alternative have been fully thought out.
Oh, that particular question is *super*-easy to answer: based on what I've
been reading, they
Okay, so how about the following as a user narrative for some and many?
many v = repeatedly execute the action v and save each obtained result
until v fails; at that point, *succeed* and return a list with all of the
results that had been collected
some v = like many v, but if
Hey everyone,
This is even more out there than my previous posts, but the following just
occurred to me: is it absolutely necessary that some/many have produced the
entire list of results before returning? Couldn't we change their semantics so
that the list of results is computed and/or
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone,
This is even more out there than my previous posts, but the following just
occurred to me: is it absolutely necessary that some/many have produced the
entire list of results before returning?
On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
Isn't this what Ross previously suggested? I think his suggested
instance methods for Maybe return the elements of the lists
incrementally.
Yes and no. Yes, his excellent suggestion is one of my favorite ideas for what
we should do with
Suppose you have a typeclass C with operations x y z w
and you decide that there's a real difference, that more
things can support x y than can support z w.
If you then split
C' x y
C z w
then all existing *uses* of C are happy.
But all the existing *instances* of C have to be
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
Isn't this what Ross previously suggested? I think his suggested
instance methods for Maybe return the elements of the lists
incrementally.
Yes and no.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 23:49, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could not use 'some' and 'many' with list and maybe :-)
Yes, yes, we get the message, a wink and a nod is all that's needed to
discard the nonsensical notion that types and typeclasses *mean* something.
--
brandon
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 23:49, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could not use 'some' and 'many' with list and maybe :-)
Yes, yes, we get the message, a wink and a nod is all that's needed to
discard
Okay, so how about the following as a user narrative for some and many?
...
I was in the middle of writing my own version of Applicative when I
stumbled on this intense debate. Here's what I wrote for the
documentation:
class (Applicative f, Monoid f) = Alternative f where
-- | Keep
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
That's the interesting thing about type-classes like Alternative and
Functor - they mean very little, and are used in widely varying
contexts.
So... your point is that in the Haskell community we don't tend to care about
whether our types,
On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Chris Wong wrote:
Okay, so how about the following as a user narrative for some and many?
...
I was in the middle of writing my own version of Applicative when I
stumbled on this intense debate. Here's what I wrote for the
documentation:
class
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:23, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
Even
the operators at hand ('many' and 'some') are partial in parsing, but
I'm not prepared to throw them out.
Okay, I must confess that this straw man has been
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
There are a lot of combinators you can build from (|) and empty that
go terribly wrong for Maybe and List but are still quite useful.
Yes, you *could* do
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
There are a lot of combinators you can build from (|) and empty that
go terribly
53 matches
Mail list logo
