Brian Hulley wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you may transform a recurrential equation yielding Y out of X:
Y[n+1] = a*X[n+1] + b*Y[n]
usually (imperatively) implemented as a loop, into a stream
definition:
...
Can you explain how this transformation was accomplished?
I don't see how
yq
hi !
2006/6/22, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
So:
1) Someone reading the code needs to do a lot of work to try to recover the
original equation
2) Wouldn't an imperative loop, using the original equation directly, have
made everything much simpler?
3) Therefore laziness has lead to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apparently - Clean has better handling of strictness
issues [saying at the same time that he/she doesn't use Clean...]
Uhm... well... and does it? From what I've heard, Clean has the same
mechanism as Haskell, which is the 'seq' primitive. Clean just adds
some
minh thu wrote:
/about the stream algorithms, lazy style/
can you know a mean to express such computation but with elements
depending of time (in about the same way as languages as esterel)
(i.e. depending of IO)?
Paul Hudak uses a Channel in his book Haskell SOE .. but is there
another way ?
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 01:24:32PM +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
I believe that ways of producing intricate streams by such languages or
Lustre are somehow based on continuation mechanisms. The paper on Esterel,
etc. : ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/esterel/pub/papers/foundations.pdf
gives you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
you may transform a recurrential equation yielding Y out of X:
Y[n+1] = a*X[N+1] + b*Y[n]
usually (imperatively) implemented as a loop, into a stream
definition:
filtr a b x@(x0:xq) = y where
y = (x0:yq)
yq = a*xq + b*y
Can you explain how this transformation
