But testing for something being evaluated has to be in the IO monad,
or else you're going to break the semantics.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
Andy Gill has been advocating programmatic access to the 'is evaluated'
status bit for years now. 'seq' becomes
On May 8, 2009, at 16:31 , Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Unless it catches exceptions itself (which strikes me as a bad idea;
it becomes a trivial way to ignore exceptions, leading to bad
programming practices) either they're handled inside the _|_ (in
which case it
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 16:31 , Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Unless it catches exceptions itself (which strikes me as a bad idea;
it becomes a trivial way to ignore exceptions, leading to bad
programming practices) either they're
Nikhil Patil wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know if there is a function in Haskell to find if a
certain
value has already been evaluated. The function I need would have the type:
(?!) :: a - Bool
I will call this function `evaluated', since it is not a binary operator.
The existence of such a
Nikhil Patil patil.nik...@gmail.com writes:
I am curious to know if there is a function in Haskell to find if a certain
value has already been evaluated. The function I need would have the type:
(?!) :: a - Bool
Well, obviously you can't do this, it would violate referential
transparency.
On May 8, 2009, at 01:33 , Joe Fredette wrote:
That strikes me as being bad in a I'm violating the Halting
Problem sort of way- but I'm not sure how. Is there some
contradictory construction that
could be built from such a function?
I don't think it is; surely the Haskell runtime knows
That must have been the vibe I was getting. My haskell-spider senses
were tingling, I just overshot RT and went for the Halting Problem.
/Joe
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 01:33 , Joe Fredette wrote:
That strikes me as being bad in a I'm violating the Halting Problem
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 01:33 , Joe Fredette wrote:
That strikes me as being bad in a I'm violating the Halting Problem
sort of way- but I'm not sure how. Is there some contradictory
construction that could be built from such a function?
I don't think it is;
On May 8, 2009, at 13:08 , Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
and therefore must be in IO. You may be thinking that it would
return a result for _|_, but as described if you fed it _|_ it could
only produce False (if the _|_ has been evaluated you would not be
able to
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 13:08 , Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
and therefore must be in IO. You may be thinking that it would
return a result for _|_, but as described if you fed it _|_ it could
only produce False (if the _|_ has been
Andy Gill has been advocating programmatic access to the 'is evaluated'
status bit for years now. 'seq' becomes cheaper, and we can write
operational properties/assertions about strictness.
-- Don
jochem:
Nikhil Patil wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know if there is a function in Haskell to
Hi,
I am curious to know if there is a function in Haskell to find if a certain
value has already been evaluated. The function I need would have the type:
(?!) :: a - Bool
And I expect it to be such that the following terminates after printing the
first 101 fibonacci numbers.
fibs = 0 : 1 :
That strikes me as being bad in a I'm violating the Halting Problem
sort of way- but I'm not sure how. Is there some contradictory
construction that
could be built from such a function?
Nikhil Patil wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know if there is a function in Haskell to find if a certain
value
13 matches
Mail list logo
