Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
QuickCheck seems to fit well when you have small input and output
spaces, but complicated stuff in the middle, but still simple
relations between the input and output. I think that's why data
structures are so easy to QuickCheck. I suppose I should look
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Serge Le Huitouze wrote:
Also, I wonder how you guys do when you're trying to tests code
using a lot of numbers (be them floating point or even integer).
Machine size integers and floating point numbers are indeed nasty. I test
a lot in NumericPrelude with QuickCheck,
On 12 January 2011 21:16, Serge Le Huitouze serge.lehuito...@gmail.com wrote:
Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
QuickCheck seems to fit well when you have small input and output
spaces, but complicated stuff in the middle, but still simple
relations between the input and output. I think
2011/1/12 Serge Le Huitouze serge.lehuito...@gmail.com
Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
.
So, in addition to defining the approximation (not always easy as I tried
to demonstrate above) to be used in comparisons, one probably needs
ad'hoc generators whose complexity might very well
Henning Thielemann lemm...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
A code doing addition and substraction of some sort.
A property such as X = (X add Y) sub Y is easily falsifiable when
the number of bits of your integer is too small for your numbers.
Since fix-width words represent modulo-arithmetic,
Serge Le Huitouze serge.lehuito...@gmail.com writes:
So, do you have any methodology for such use cases?
QuickCheck has the == operator, which lets you add a precondition. So
you could limit the testing of your property to values that satisfy the
precondition.
An alternative is to use newtype
On 1/12/11 5:05 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Of course, ideally you should design your types so that all possible
values are meaningful:-)
Sadly we cannot all program in Agda. :-)
Cheers,
Greg
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jonathan Geddes:
When I write Haskell code, I write functions (and monadic actions)
that are either a) so trivial that writing any kind of unit/property
test seems silly, or are b) composed of other trivial functions using
equally-trivial combinators.
You can write in
Seeing all the good discussion on this thread, I think we are missing
a TDD page on our Haskell.org wiki. =)
Cheers,
--
Felipe.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
* Jonathan Geddes:
When I write Haskell code, I write functions (and monadic actions)
that are either a) so trivial that writing any kind of unit/property
test seems silly, or are b) composed of other trivial functions using
equally-trivial combinators.
You can write in this style in any
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Chung-chieh Shan
ccs...@post.harvard.edu wrote:
Besides those example inputs and expected outputs, what about:
If two signals are (in)compatible then after applying some simple
transformations to both they remain (in)compatible? A certain family of
signals is
I should say that this reimplementation would be good. If you can
compare two implementations (one in plain Haskell and second in
declarative QuickCheck rules) you will be better that with only one.
This presumes I know how to write a simple but slow version. Clearly,
that's an excellent
2011/1/6 Arnaud Bailly arnaud.oq...@gmail.com:
I would supplement this excellent list of advices with an emphasis on
the first one: Test-Driven Development is *not* testing, TDD is a
*design* process. Like you said, it is a discipline of thought that
forces you first to express your intent
2011/1/6 Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com:
QuickCheck especially is great because it automates this tedious work:
it fuzzes out the input for you and you get to think in terms of
higher-level invariants when testing your code. Since about six months
ago with the introduction of JUnit XML support
Cafe,
In every language I program in, I try to be as disciplined as possible
and use Test-Driven Development. That is, every language except
Haskell.
There are a few great benefits that come from having a comprehensive
test suite with your application:
1. Refactoring is safer/easier
2. You have
Jonathan Geddes wrote:
snip
So, am I missing the benefits of TDD in my Haskell code?
Probably. I work on a project which has 4+ lines of
haskell code (a compiler written in haskell) and has a huge
test suite that is a vital to continued development.
I've also written relatively small
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Jonathan Geddes wrote:
snip
So, am I missing the benefits of TDD in my Haskell code?
Probably. I work on a project which has 4+ lines of
haskell code (a compiler written in haskell) and has a huge
test suite that is a vital to continued development.
On 01/05/2011 03:44 AM, Jonathan Geddes wrote:
When I write Haskell code, I write functions (and monadic actions)
that are either a) so trivial that writing any kind of unit/property
test seems silly, or are b) composed of other trivial functions using
equally-trivial combinators.
There are
The Haskell type system is simply not rich enough to guarantee everything you
might need.
That's true, and after giving this a bit more thought, I realized it's
not JUST the type system that I'm talking about here. There are a few
other features that make it hard for me to want to use
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.com wrote:
The Haskell type system is simply not rich enough to guarantee everything
you might need.
Despite all this, I suspect that since Haskell is at a higher level of
abstraction than other languages, the tests in
Haskell's type system makes large classes of traditional unit tests
irrelevant. Here are some examples:
- Tests that simply run code to make sure there are no syntax
errors or typos,
- Tests that exercise simple input validation that is handled by the
type system, i.e.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite all this, I suspect that since Haskell is at a higher level of
abstraction than other languages, the tests in Haskell must be at a
correspondingly higher level than the tests in other languages. I can
see
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:27:29PM +0100, Gregory Collins wrote:
Once I had written the test harness, I spent literally less than a
half-hour setting this up. Highly recommended, even if it is a (blech)
Java program. Testing is one of the few areas where I think our
software engineering
Jonathan Geddes wrote:
I know that much of my code could benefit from a property test or two
on the more complex parts, but other than that I can't think that unit
testing will improve my Haskell code/programming practice.
One other thing I should mention that is that since a lot of
Haskell
These are some heuristics memories I have for myself, and you can feel
free to take whatever usefulness you can get out of it.
1. Don't confuse TDD with writing tests, in general.
2. Studies show that if you do TDD, you can write more tests than if you
write tests after you write the code.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.comwrote:
5. I have a hard time understanding statements like The difficulties in
unit testing OO code is coaxing objects into the correct state to test a
particular property. Difficulty in unit testing OO code is best
John Zabroski wrote:
5. I have a hard time understanding statements like The difficulties in
unit testing OO code is coaxing objects into the correct state to test a
particular property.
This is my direct experience of inheriting code written by others
without any tests and trying to add
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Gregory Collins g...@gregorycollins.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite all this, I suspect that since Haskell is at a higher level of
abstraction than other languages, the tests in Haskell must be
Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote in article
aanlktinfyp-bpbs1ga8_=o9wcrhe+duux-vfrmdl2...@mail.gmail.com in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Incidentally, I've never been able to figure out how to use
QuickCheck. Maybe it has more to do with my particular app, but
QuickCheck seems to expect
You need both. A good static type system will tell you whether or not the
code is type-correct. It will not tell you whether or not it does what it's
supposed to do.
Consider:
sort :: [a] - [a]
If you change sort to be:
sort = id
It will still type check, but it obviously doesn't do what
I would supplement this excellent list of advices with an emphasis on
the first one: Test-Driven Development is *not* testing, TDD is a
*design* process. Like you said, it is a discipline of thought that
forces you first to express your intent with a test, second to write
the simplest thing that
Hello,
I think your type should be:
type Board a b c d e f g h i =
Either (Three a b c)
(Either (Three d e f)
(Either (Three g h i)
(Either (Three a d g)
(Either (Three b e h)
(Either (Three c f i)
(Either (Three a e i)
(Three c e g)))
as far as i can understand, it
People in the Haskell community get awfully excited about Haskell's type
system.
When I was first learning Haskell, I found this rather odd. After all, a
type is just a flat name that tells the compiler how many bits to
allocate and which operations to allow, right?
As I read further, I
Andrew Coppin wrote:
What we're really trying to do here is attach additional information to
a value - information which exists only in the type checker's head, but
has no effect on runtime behaviour (other than determining whether we
*get* to runtime). As far as I can tell, Haskell does not
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
What we're really trying to do here is attach additional information to a
value - information which exists only in the type checker's head, but has no
effect on runtime behaviour (other than
Ross Mellgren wrote:
This works for me:
{-# LANGUAGE EmptyDataDecls, GADTs #-}
module Main where
data NoZoo
data Zoo
newtype X = X Int deriving (Show)
newtype Y = Y Char deriving (Show)
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar
On Jun 22, 2009, at 14:43 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar NoZoo - Foobar Zoo
For some reason, if I do this I get endless type check errors. I
have to change the top two back to Foobar a before it will work.
I'm no expert, but it seems like those constructors should return
Foobar NoZoo, unless you're nesting so there could be a Zoo, in which
case the type variable a should transit, for example:
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Baz :: Foobar
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ross Mellgrenrmm-hask...@z.odi.ac wrote:
I'm no expert, but it seems like those constructors should return Foobar
NoZoo, unless you're nesting so there could be a Zoo, in which case the type
variable a should transit, for example:
data Foobar a where
Foo
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:16:12PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
That's what GADTs are for:
data Flag = HasZoo | NoZoo
data Foobar a where
Foo :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Bar :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Zoo :: Foobar a - Foobar HasZoo
Ouch #1: This appears to
Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:16:12PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
That's what GADTs are for:
data Flag = HasZoo | NoZoo
data Foobar a where
Foo :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Bar :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Zoo :: Foobar a - Foobar HasZoo
Not nearly as annoying as this:
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar NoZoo - Foobar Zoo
For some reason, if I do this I get endless type check errors. I have to
change the top two back to Foobar a before it will work. *sigh*
Andrew Coppin said:
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar NoZoo - Foobar Zoo
For some reason, if I do this I get endless type check errors. I have to
change the top two back to Foobar a before it will work. *sigh*
That code snippet
Niklas Broberg wrote:
Not nearly as annoying as this:
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar NoZoo - Foobar Zoo
For some reason, if I do this I get endless type check errors. I have to
change the top two back to Foobar a before it will
This works for me:
{-# LANGUAGE EmptyDataDecls, GADTs #-}
module Main where
data NoZoo
data Zoo
newtype X = X Int deriving (Show)
newtype Y = Y Char deriving (Show)
data Foobar a where
Foo :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Bar :: X - Y - Foobar NoZoo
Zoo :: Foobar NoZoo - Foobar Zoo
foobar
I have a datatype with about a dozen constructors. I'd like to find a
way to use the type system to prevent one of the constructors from being
used in certain places. But I can't think of a way to do that.
data Foobar =
Foo Foobar |
Bar Foobar |
Zoo Foobar
I want the type system to
Am Sonntag 21 Juni 2009 21:24:24 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
I have a datatype with about a dozen constructors. I'd like to find a
way to use the type system to prevent one of the constructors from being
used in certain places. But I can't think of a way to do that.
data Foobar =
Foo Foobar
Niklas Broberg wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Andrew
Coppinandrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
data Foobar =
Foo Foobar |
Bar Foobar |
Zoo Foobar
I want the type system to track whether or not Zoo has been used in a
specific value. Sure, you can check for it at runtime, but
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Andrew
Coppinandrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I have a datatype with about a dozen constructors. I'd like to find a way to
use the type system to prevent one of the constructors from being used in
certain places. But I can't think of a way to do that.
data
Niklas Broberg wrote:
That's what GADTs are for:
data Flag = HasZoo | NoZoo
data Foobar a where
Foo :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Bar :: Foobar a - Foobar a
Zoo :: Foobar a - Foobar HasZoo
Ouch #1: This appears to instantly disable deriving the Eq, Ord and Show
instances I want. :-/
That's what GADTs are for:
data Flag = HasZoo | NoZoo
Eh, I wrote this a bit fast obviously (no dependent types here).
Like Daniel Fischer wrote, these should rather be separate data types, i.e.
data HasZoo
data NoZoo
The rest is still correct though.
data Foobar a where
Foo :: Foobar a
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Andrew
Coppinandrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Andrew
Coppinandrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I want the type system to track whether or not Zoo has been used in a
specific value. Sure, you can check
David Menendez wrote:
If you don't need code that's polymorphic between Foobar HasZoo and
Foobar NoZoo, you could just newtype Foobar and only export smart
constructors.
Unfortunately I want to be able to print both of them out. (After all,
the printing algorithm is identical whether Zoo
G'day all.
Quoting Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And yet they commonly pop up in Haskell. Can anybody put their finger
on precisely why that is?
One of the reasons why advanced type hackery shows up a lot in Haskell
is that Haskell has never taken the easy way out.
When confronted with
Haskell has an expressive and powerful type system - which I love. It
also has a seemingly endless list of weird and obscure type system
extensions. And there are various things you can do in Haskell which
*require* some pretty serious type system hackery.
And yet, none of this happens in any
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Andrew Coppin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haskell has an expressive and powerful type system - which I love. It
also has a seemingly endless list of weird and obscure type system
extensions. And there are various things you can do in Haskell which
*require*
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Coppin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haskell has an expressive and powerful type system - which I love. It
also has a seemingly endless list of weird and obscure type system
extensions...And yet, none of this happens in any other programming language
I've
dpiponi:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Coppin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haskell has an expressive and powerful type system - which I love. It
also has a seemingly endless list of weird and obscure type system
extensions...And yet, none of this happens in any other programming
Am Freitag, 14. März 2008 19:50 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
[…]
Is it because Haskell is used by more PhDs? Is it because Haskell
actually allows you to implement constructs that are impossible in other
languages? Is it because Haskell really provides greater type safety? Is
it something else?
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Haskell has an expressive and powerful type system - which I love. It
also has a seemingly endless list of weird and obscure type system
extensions. And there are various things you can do in Haskell which
*require* some pretty serious type system hackery.
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let y f = f $ y f
Prelude :t y
y :: (b - b) - b
Just out of curiosity: Where the heck does 'a' hide?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:22 -0500, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let y f = f $ y f
Prelude :t y
y :: (b - b) - b
Just out of curiosity: Where the heck does 'a' hide?
Beg pardon? Are you referring to the type of y being
(The full code used for this message is available at
http://ryani.freeshell.org/haskell/systemf.hs)
System F is the polymorphically typed lambda calculus. It is strongly typed
but allows polymorphic functions like id.
id is represented as follows:
eId = EGamma A (ELam x TVar EVar)
which
Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Friday 13 July 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Try not to care what other people think.
LOL! If only that were in fact physically possible...
Why not? I do it all the time...
Clearly you don't know me... I spend 80% of my
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 06:45:03PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 15:11 , Stefan O'Rear wrote:
There is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII - base assumes files contain
ISO-8859-1.
Hm, shouldn't it really be ISO-8859-15? (The
Hello Andrew,
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:01:24 PM, you wrote:
definitely. for example, on windows it doesn't support unicode
filenames nor files bigger than 4gb
so i use my own lib, a thin layer around Windows API
Has a bug been reported for this? Have you (or anyone else) thought
about
Hello Andrew,
Thursday, July 12, 2007, 10:15:00 PM, you wrote:
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant to byte-oriented
encodings like UTF-8, I think programs that fail on their presence can
be considered buggy.
Yay! Haskell's text I/O system is buggy. :-P
definitely. for
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:15 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant to byte-oriented
encodings like UTF-8, I think programs that fail on their presence can
be considered buggy.
Yay! Haskell's text I/O system is buggy. :-P
Works for me, but feel free
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:26:38AM +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:15 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant to byte-oriented
encodings like UTF-8, I think programs that fail on their presence can
be considered buggy.
Yay!
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
By the way Andrew, have you noticed that you're generating 50% of the
traffic on this list? Perhaps we can work a bit more on improving the
signal/noise ratio. My inbox can only take so much of this... ;)
o_O
My God... even the Haskell mailing list is
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Yay! Haskell's text I/O system is buggy. :-P
definitely. for example, on windows it doesn't support unicode
filenames nor files bigger than 4gb
...OK, that's quite worrying...
so i use my own lib, a thin layer around Windows API
Has a bug
Ketil Malde wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:15 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant to byte-oriented
encodings like UTF-8, I think programs that fail on their presence can
be considered buggy.
Yay! Haskell's text I/O system is buggy.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ketil Malde wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:15 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant to byte-oriented
encodings like UTF-8, I think programs that fail on their presence can
be
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I was actually commenting on the other guy's remark that anything that
chokes on a BOM can be considered buggy - not entirely seriously. ;-)
If there is a bug to be reported, it is merely that [the GHC
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Oh well, the problem is easily fixed... *sigh*
I doubt that anybody minds having you talk about Haskell. You've been
responsible for spawning a lot of interesting threads.
[And that one about compression that's still going on somewhere...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:57:58PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Oh well, the problem is easily fixed... *sigh*
I doubt that anybody minds having you talk about Haskell. You've been
responsible for spawning a lot of interesting threads.
[And
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:57:58PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
- Join us on #haskell on IRC. It's extremely chatty, and you'll be
welcome.
Not in my experience, no.
(Maybe I ask the wrong way... but almost everybody seems to simply ignore
me. Actually, usually
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Don does not speak for the whole community, I for one am fine with
answering all these questions :)
I guess when somebody as important as Don says something, you take notice...
Specifically, Don really wants you to get off of the mailing list and
ask all these
On Jul 13, 2007, at 15:11 , Stefan O'Rear wrote:
There is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII - base assumes files contain
ISO-8859-1.
Hm, shouldn't it really be ISO-8859-15? (The difference being that
-1 predates the euro symbol.)
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell]
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 06:45:03PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 15:11 , Stefan O'Rear wrote:
There is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII - base assumes files contain
ISO-8859-1.
Hm, shouldn't it really be ISO-8859-15? (The difference being that -1
predates the
On Friday 13 July 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Don does not speak for the whole community, I for one am fine with
answering all these questions :)
I guess when somebody as important as Don says something, you take
notice...
Specifically, Don really wants you to get
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Consider the ST monad, which lets you use update-in-place, but is
escapable (unlike IO). ST actions have the form:
ST s α
Meaning that they return a value of type
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Wait... I thought Unicode was still an experimental prototype? Since
when does it work in the real world??
That myth is as old as Haskell is an experimental prototype. Old as
in that's an old one.
Windows has been well
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 09:12:14AM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Consider the ST monad, which lets you use update-in-place, but is
escapable (unlike IO). ST actions
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Wait... I thought Unicode was still an experimental prototype? Since
when does it work in the real world??
That myth is as old as Haskell is an experimental prototype.
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 20:10 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
When I tell the editor to save UTF-8, it inserts some weird BOM
character at the start of the file - and thus, any attempt at
programatically processing that file instantly fails. :-(
While BOMs (Byte Order Mark) are pretty irrelevant
Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
When I tell the editor to save UTF-8, it inserts some weird BOM
character at the start of the file - and thus, any attempt at
programatically processing that file instantly fails. :-(
I know Windows Notepad puts a BOM at the beginning of UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:01:31PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Let me put it this way: It makes all my Tcl scripts stop working, and it
makes my Haskell-based processor go nuts too...
Given that (IIRC) the BOM is just a valid unicode non-breaking space,
your scripts really ought to cope...
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Philip Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:01:31PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Let me put it this way: It makes all my Tcl scripts stop working, and it
makes my Haskell-based processor go nuts too...
Given that (IIRC) the BOM is just a valid
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:24:24 +0100, you wrote:
Given that (IIRC) the BOM is just a valid unicode non-breaking space,
your scripts really ought to cope...
Choking on the BOM is probably just a symptom of a deeper problem. My
bet is that removing the BOM would simply delay the failure until the
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 04:58:43PM -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:24:24 +0100, you wrote:
Given that (IIRC) the BOM is just a valid unicode non-breaking space,
your scripts really ought to cope...
Choking on the BOM is probably just a symptom of a deeper problem. My
bet
andrewcoppin:
Ketil Malde wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 20:10 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
When I tell the editor to save UTF-8, it inserts some weird BOM
character at the start of the file - and thus, any attempt at
programatically processing that file instantly fails. :-(
On Jul 12, 2007, at 20:48 , Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
By the way Andrew, have you noticed that you're generating 50% of the
traffic on this list? Perhaps we can work a bit more on improving the
signal/noise ratio. My inbox can only take so much of this... ;)
I can blather more, if you'd
AC Wait... I thought Unicode was still an experimental prototype?
AC Since when does it work in the real world??
What? There was time when Unicode was not working
Sorry... couldn't help saying that...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On 10/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... I tried to put a pound sign on my web page, and it came
out garbled, so I had to replace it with pound;...
You may need to specify a content encoding in the HTML header. For
that, you need to know the encoding your HTML file is
Paul Moore wrote:
On 10/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... I tried to put a pound sign on my web page, and it came
out garbled, so I had to replace it with pound;...
You may need to specify a content encoding in the HTML header. For
that, you need to know the
Jonathan Cast wrote:
toUpper :: exists x. x - x works for only one choice of x.
Are you sure that's not:
toUpper :: exists x. x - x works for *at least one* choice of x
?
I'm not sure about the haskell meaning, but the logic meaning is
definitely this. For example:
forall x:Integer.
Paul Moore wrote:
On 10/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... I tried to put a pound sign on my web page, and it came
out garbled, so I had to replace it with pound;...
You may need to specify a content encoding in the HTML header. For
that, you need to know the
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Hmm. Like the IO monad's RealWorld object, which isn't really there?
ST and IO monads are the same beast. in ST, s is free to allow to
create endless amount of independent threads while in IO it fixed to
one type and describes evolution of one
Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Lest I am painted as unhelpful(*), http://www.vex.net/~trebla/u.html
exemplifies what can be done and how to do it. In particular, you must
always specify a content encoding in the HTML header, and you must
always order your editor to write out UTF-8.
When I tell the
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
