On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 20:13 -0800, Ryan Ingram wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
uj supplied this:
About the discussion
putStrLn (readLn + (5 :: Int))..
I'll write it as the following line,
importing Control.Applicative
main = (+)
Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com writes:
importing Control.Applicative
main = print = liftM2 (+) readLn (return 3)
[...] line noise
Why not just:
main = print . (+3) = readLn
Or using applicative:
print = (+3) $ readLn
?
(Which separates the printing from the addition.)
-k
--
If
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com writes:
importing Control.Applicative
main = print = liftM2 (+) readLn (return 3)
[...] line noise
Why not just:
main = print . (+3) = readLn
Or using applicative:
print = (+3) $
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:17 +0100, Gábor Lehel wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com writes:
importing Control.Applicative
main = print = liftM2 (+) readLn (return 3)
[...] line noise
Why not just:
main =
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
uj supplied this:
About the discussion
putStrLn (readLn + (5 :: Int))..
I'll write it as the following line,
importing Control.Applicative
main = (+) readLn (return 3)
They look almost exactly same in my eyes..
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:13, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
uj supplied this:
About the discussion
putStrLn (readLn + (5 :: Int))..
I'll write it as the following line,
importing Control.Applicative
main =
On January 21, 2011 14:01:36 Ryan Ingram wrote:
Interesting little paper, Tyson.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for comments and kind words.
I think what a programmer actually wants from ambiguity resolution is
something *predictable*; C++'s system is definitely stretching the
boundaries of
On January 19, 2011 15:28:33 Conor McBride wrote:
In each case, the former has (++) acting on lists of strings as pure
values,
while the latter has (++) acting on strings as values given in
[]-computations.
The type [String] determines a domain, it does not decompose uniquely
to a
notion
Interesting little paper, Tyson.
You bring up other programming languages and 'ad-hoc systems for
resolving ambiguities'; I agree with you that these systems generally
have no strong theoretical basis, but I'm not sure that's a terribly
bad thing.
I think what a programmer actually wants from
uj supplied this:
About the discussion
putStrLn (readLn + (5 :: Int))..
I'll write it as the following line,
importing Control.Applicative
main = (+) readLn (return 3)
They look almost exactly same in my eyes..
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:01:36 -0800, you wrote:
Interesting little paper,
Hi Tyson
(So OT, I'm switching to cafe.)
On 19 Jan 2011, at 18:24, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
On January 17, 2011 16:20:22 Conor McBride wrote:
Ahem
: )
The unfortunate pain you pay for this additional power is manually
having to
specify the application ($ and *) and merging (join). If the
11 matches
Mail list logo
