erm, yes you're right - don't know why that is - seems a fairly
arbitrary decision to me... perhaps someone else knows a good
reason why normal function definiton is not allowed?
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
aha, I see.
Seems like i still have a long way to go with functional programming.
final questi
Subsets can be done like this:
myInterval = Interval {
isin = \n -> case n of
r | r == 0.3 -> True
| r > 0.6 && r < 1.0 -> True
| otherwise -> False,
rangein = \(s,e) -> case (s,e) of
(i,j) | i==0.3 && j==0.3 -> True
| i>=0.6 && j<=1.0 -> True
|
Stijn De Saeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, like you mentioned in your post, now I find myself needing a
> notion of subset relations, and since you obviously can't define
> equality over functions, i'm stuck again.
Perhaps one can define an approximate equality, with an error bound?
Def
I'm trying to test TclHaskell under Hugs98-Nov2003, compiled from source.
My current problem with getting it to work seems to be a failure to load
the function intToWord32.
Well, here is a partial transcript of a session run from within the
TclHaskell src directory (after compiling TclPrim.so):
John Velman wrote:
I'm trying to test TclHaskell under Hugs98-Nov2003, compiled from source.
My current problem with getting it to work seems to be a failure to load
the function intToWord32.
"intToWord32" and friends have been deprecated more than 3 years ago, and
recent Haskell platforms have dro
Hi,
I am new to haskell, but otherwise experienced in programming languages.
My first attempt at Haskell was this (on a Linux Debian) session with hugs:
Type :? for help
Prelude> :version
-- Hugs Version November 2003
Prelude> let p = 1 : [2 * x | x <- p, x < 1] in p
[1Segmentation fault
Is it
On 2004-10-29 at 00:45+0200 Andrej Bauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to haskell, but otherwise experienced in programming languages.
> My first attempt at Haskell was this (on a Linux Debian) session with hugs:
>
> Type :? for help
> Prelude> :version
> -- Hugs Version November 2003
> Prelude> let
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>In ghci you get:
>
>[1*** Exception: <>
>
>which is better.
Not much better, though: in my experience this particular exception
leaves ghci in a very peculiar state, and it's usually necessary to quit
and restart it before it will work again.
Is it coincidence that both Hug
On 2004-10-29 at 00:03BST Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >In ghci you get:
> >
> >[1*** Exception: <>
> >
> >which is better.
>
> Not much better, though: in my experience this particular
> exception leaves ghci in a very peculiar state, and it's
> usually necessary to qu
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>On 2004-10-29 at 00:03BST Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
>
>>Not much better, though: in my experience this particular
>>exception leaves ghci in a very peculiar state, and it's
>>usually necessary to quit and restart it before it will
>>work again.
>
>I don't think I've seen such a
Thanks for the explanation and example. I think the goal is to close
the pipe (for instance) asap after writing is finished. GC imposes a
delay, but so does bracketing, especially where modularity is desired.
Consider that the bracketing IO code calls separately defined IO code,
which makes the f
On 29-Oct-2004, Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >On 2004-10-29 at 00:03BST Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> >
> >>Not much better, though: in my experience this particular
> >>exception leaves ghci in a very peculiar state, and it's
> >>usually necessary to quit and
Dear all,
I'm new in Haskell. I need to port a haskell application written by
someone else to be called by a .Net C# application. Please kindly
advise on which option to pursue. Any helps will really be
appreciated.
Best Regards,
David
___
Haskell-Cafe
Hi again,
yes, i decided to go with my first idea after all and represent
real-valued sets as a list of ranges. It went pretty ok for a while,
but then inevitably new questions come up... *sigh*. i'll get this to
work eventually... maybe. :-)
for anyone still interested in the topic, here's where
Stijn De Saeger wrote:
> Now, for unions I tried the following:
> to take the union of two BasicSets, just append them and contract the result.
> contracting meaning: merge overlapping intervals.
>
> > contract :: Range -> Range -> BasicSet
> > contract (x1,y1) (x2,y2)
> > | x2 <= y1 = if x2
15 matches
Mail list logo
