| Well, it seems a shame that we don't have postfix operators already.
| I guess that means I am arguing we should introduce a unary postfix
| operator, and not even have sugar for factorial, as it conflicts with
| array access.
|
| We *almost* do:
| Hugs.Base let (!) 0 = 1; (!) x = x*((!) (x-1))
Andrea Rossato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm not able to create an object file (dynamically) linked to
HaXml. This is the reason why hxml doesn't work with ghc (and ghci)
but works perfectly with hugs.
Now, I don't know whether I should contact the HaXml author or submit
a bug report
Andrea Rossato wrote:
It seems related to dynamic linking: I created a separated module
(Xml.hs) that imports Text.XML.HaXml and parses a xml string. I then
created a file (xml.hs) that imports Xml and prints name, defined in
Xml.hs. The expected output should be elementTest.
Whatever it is,
Il Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:30:41AM +0200, Udo Stenzel ebbe a scrivere:
Whatever it is, I cannot reproduce any of your problems. I installed
HaXml-1.13.2 from source using Cabal, and both ghc -c Xml.hs and ghc
--make xml.hs work as expected, even without the -package switch. This
is GHC 6.4.1
Am Sonntag, 10. September 2006 02:29 schrieben Sie:
Hello,
Try Don Stewart's ByteString library
(http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/fps.html). It is much faster than
the standard Haskell IO and now has lazy.
-Jeff
Yay, that's really an improvement!
Depending on the size of the file/graph
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
negate (expNat 4 2)
because this would free the ^ symbol for some more widely
applicable use, and would also make the particular choice of
exponentiation operator more explicit
Agreed, though I'd want expt to be part of a typeclass
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:57:56AM -0400, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Num itself needs to be split, but we can't do it sanely without
something like class aliases.
I think that a finer grain numeric hierarchy, while retaining Num, etc,
is feasible
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Jón Fairbairn wrote:
Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2006-09-08, Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why shouldn't Naturals be more primitive than Integers?
Certainly they're more primitive. Too primitive to have reasonable
algebraic properties.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
Of course, there's always a typeclass, where we could add all sorts of
other encodings of the Peano axioms, such as binary trees,, but I don't
see that that buys us much if we don't also get access to operations
beyond them, such as (an
On 9/11/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expr Bool = Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | forall t . Eq t
Still confusing, but less so.
The problem is that it's really backwards. The symbol being defined is Eq.
Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | Eq t = Expr Bool
but that doesn't fit well, does it?
On 2006-09-11, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
negate (expNat 4 2)
because this would free the ^ symbol for some more widely
applicable use, and would also make the particular choice of
exponentiation operator more explicit
Hello Daniel,
Monday, September 11, 2006, 6:05:38 PM, you wrote:
The problem spec states that the input file contains about 500 test cases,
each given by between 1 and 100,000 lines, each line containing a single word
of between 2 and 1000 letters.
So the file should be about 12.5G on
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:26:30PM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Ross Paterson wrote:
I think that a finer grain numeric hierarchy, while retaining Num, etc,
is feasible without changing the language: unlike the case of monads,
the people who will be defining
Hello Michael,
you are correct. Only
* (a `seq` return a) = evaluate a *right now*, then produce an IO action
which, when executed, returns the result of evaluating a. Thus, if
a is undefined, throws an exception right now.
is a bit misleading as there is no evaluation right now. It's
Taral wrote:
On 9/11/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expr Bool = Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | forall t . Eq t
Still confusing, but less so.
The problem is that it's really backwards. The symbol being defined
is Eq.
Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | Eq t = Expr Bool
but that doesn't fit
On 2006-09-10, Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think in practice this wouldn't really be an issue. When you're
using natural numbers, you tend to be in a situation where you're
either numbering things statically, and not doing any calculations
with them, or you're using them as
On 2006-09-11, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Well, it seems a shame that we don't have postfix operators already.
Actually, the up-coming GHC 6.6 does allow this.
Awesome.
--
Aaron Denney
--
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On 9/11/06, Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem spec states that the input file contains about 500 test cases,
each given by between 1 and 100,000 lines, each line containing a single word
of between 2 and 1000 letters.
So the file should be about 12.5G on average.
I don't
On 2006-09-11, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
Of course, there's always a typeclass, where we could add all sorts of
other encodings of the Peano axioms, such as binary trees,, but I don't
see that that buys us much if we don't also
On 2006-09-11, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:57:56AM -0400, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Num itself needs to be split, but we can't do it sanely without
something like class aliases.
I think that a finer grain
Taral wrote:
On 9/11/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expr Bool = Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | forall t . Eq t
Still confusing, but less so.
The problem is that it's really backwards. The symbol being defined
is Eq.
Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | Eq t = Expr Bool
but that doesn't fit
On 9/11/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data
Expr t = If (Expr Bool) (Expr t) (Expr t)
Expr Bool = Eq (Expr t) (Expr t) | Eq t
Expr Int = Lit Int
Meh. I'm still not big on it, since in a normal function, the guard is
based on a
Does anyone know if there is a way around the 20 charachter identifier
limitation when heap profiling? I have a number of identifiers that
indistinguishably break that limit.
-mdg
--
Our problems are mostly behind us, now all we have to do is fight the solutions.
bitshifter:
Does anyone know if there is a way around the 20 charachter identifier
limitation when heap profiling? I have a number of identifiers that
indistinguishably break that limit.
Add custom {-# SCC mybetteridentifier #-} pragmas next to the places
with overly long names?
-- Don
24 matches
Mail list logo
