On Friday, January 09, 2004 2:48 AM, Ashley Yakeley
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have an example of use of Y for letrec where a program would
violate R5RS?
Sure, take a look at my implementation of Ben Rudiak-Gould's
implementation of Alan Bawden's implementation of boxes.
In 4.2.2
On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 5:04 PM, Kevin S. Millikin
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, sure. I didn't mean to quibble with the idea that continuations
are computational effects. Just wanted to point out that (I think)
you can't macro express mutation with call/cc, unless you've already
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:20 PM, Tn X-10n
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to convert IO Bool to Bool?
Sure. Which Bool do you want? True?
toTrue :: IO Bool - Bool
toTrue x = True
Or False?
toFalse :: IO Bool - Bool
toFalse x = False
Maybe that's not what you had
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:52 PM, Shawn P. Garbett
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
output :: (a - IO b) - [a] - IO ()
output f = (foldr () (return ())).(map f)
Study the Prelude :)
output :: (a - IO b) - [a] - IO ()
output = mapM_
___
itself quoted with lambda. The lambda way seems
Chris like a hack while the CPS way feels consistant.
I guess I don't understand. Change \ c - to \ () -. Remove the
application of every c. Change occurrences of c in argument
position to ().
--
Kevin S. Millikin Architecture Technology
or termination/separation, and formatting
that was *not* significant (code that was formatted as if it did one
thing but actually did another).
--
Kevin S. Millikin Architecture Technology Corporation
Research Scientist Specialists in Computer Architecture
(952)829-5864 x. 162 http
