John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:03:18PM -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Haskell-98 style records are widely acknowledged as sucking, and there are
something like half a dozen proposals all of which are widely acknowledged
as vastly superior. Expect to be stuck with H98 records for
You are suggesting later in this thread that the old ListT could be used
to solve my initial problem. I don't see how, so I'm wondering if you'd
mind sorting some things out for me?
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:59:58 +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
[..]
test = do
a - liftIO getChar
guard $ a /= 'q'
John Ky wrote:
On 1/25/07, BBrraannddoonn SS.. AAllllbbeerryy
KKFF88NNHH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but:
(a) Why not:
data ANode = Branch { name :: String, description :: String,
children :: [AnyNode] }
| Following up and the threads on haskell and haskell-cafe, I'd like to
| gather ideas, comments and suggestions for a standarized Haskell
| Benchmark Suite.
Great idea. Maybe this can subsume nofib. I recommend reading the nofib paper
though:
Em Qui, 2007-01-25 às 16:58 +, Simon Peyton-Jones escreveu:
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marco
| Túlio Gontijo e Silva
| Sent: 25 January 2007 12:57
| To: haskell-cafe
| Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Type infer
|
| Em Qua,
On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Arie Peterson wrote:
Using DrIFT would probably automate the deriving just as well, but
in my
particular situation TH support is easier to maintain than DrIFT
support.
May I ask why TH is easier to maintain than DrIFT?
I'm not familiar with DrIFT.
Why would
Quoth Arie Peterson, nevermore,
I also fear that the existing script does not handle types with more than
256 constructors correctly. While uncommon, those are not unrealistic.
256 constructors ought to be enough for anybody? ;-)
Seriously though, the thought of a type definition that
Joel Reymont wrote:
May I ask why TH is easier to maintain than DrIFT?
I'm not familiar with DrIFT.
The reason is personal, and very silly. I only use ghc, so TH is available
automatically.
Like you, I have never used DrIFT, so I would have to get to know it, and
install it everywhere I want
Kenneth Hoste wrote:
The idea is to gather a bunch of programs written in Haskell, and which
are representative for the Haskell community (i.e. apps, libraries,
...).
A While ago I tried to write a Haskell version of John Harrops
ray-tracer benchmark
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:17:28AM -0500, Al Falloon wrote:
Kenneth Hoste wrote:
The idea is to gather a bunch of programs written in Haskell, and which
are representative for the Haskell community (i.e. apps, libraries,
...).
A While ago I tried to write a Haskell version of John Harrops
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Binary: high performance, pure binary serialisation for Haskell
--
The Binary Strike Team is pleased to announce the release of a new,
pure, efficient binary
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:12:29PM +, Dougal Stanton wrote:
Quoth Arie Peterson, nevermore,
I also fear that the existing script does not handle types with more than
256 constructors correctly. While uncommon, those are not unrealistic.
256 constructors ought to be enough for anybody?
Neil Davies wrote:
I've prototyped a fix for this issue which will now only wrap every
585,000 years or so. It also removes the 1/50th of a second timer
resolution for the runtime. This means that the additional 20ms (or
thereabouts) of delay in the wakeup has gone.
This means that GHC is now
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:16:22PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
We believe so, and its a bug if this is not the case.
The src documents the encoding format used for each type (we were unable
to attach haddocks to instances.. grr.)
All data is encoded in Network order, and extended to
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:31:28PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Binary: high performance, pure binary serialisation for Haskell
--
The Binary Strike
David Roundy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:17:28AM -0500, Al Falloon wrote:
Kenneth Hoste wrote:
The idea is to gather a bunch of programs written in Haskell, and which
are representative for the Haskell community (i.e. apps, libraries,
...).
A While ago I tried to write a Haskell version
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you consider using an encoding which uses variable number of
bytes? If yes, I would be interested to know your reason for not
choosing such an encoding. Efficiency?
My Binary implementation (from 1998) used a type-specific number of bits
to encode
No doubt many of you will have seen the interview[1] on Channel9 with
Anders Hejlsberg, Herb Sutter, Erik Meijer and Brian Beckman. These are
some of Microsoft's top language gurus, and they discuss the future
evolution of programming languages. In particular they identify
composability,
Al Falloon wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:17:28AM -0500, Al Falloon wrote:
Kenneth Hoste wrote:
The idea is to gather a bunch of programs written in Haskell, and
which are representative for the Haskell community (i.e. apps,
libraries, ...).
A While ago I tried to
existing ecoding system - both the BER (Basic Encoding Rules) and the
PER (Packed Encoding Rules).
If you are looking to target a well supported standard - this would be the one.
Neil
On 26/01/07, Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you
On 1/25/07, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many of you will know that Paul Hudak, John Hughes, Phil Wadler and I have been
working on a paper called
A History of Haskell: being lazy with class
Just wanted to say this paper is excellent, and actually a great tool
for
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:13:43 - (GMT), you wrote:
world. It also highlights some of the misconceptions that still exist and
need to be challenged, e.g. the idea that Haskell is too hard or is
impractical for real work.
Haskell _is_ hard, although I don't think it's _too_ hard, or I wouldn't
This seems like a natural thing to have around, but it's not in GHC 6.6...
newTArrayIO :: (Enum i, Ix i) = (i, i) - a - IO (TArray i a)
newTArrayIO (a,b) = liftM (TArray . listArray (a,b)) . sequence . zipWith
ignore [a..b] . repeat . newTVarIO
where ignore = flip const
I haven't done any
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
Did you consider using an encoding which uses variable number of bytes?
If yes, I would be interested to know your reason for not choosing such
an encoding. Efficiency?
I am testing/benchmarking one right now I wrote for
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:42:48PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
I also have to use a specific serialisation format. I guess we could
both simply use putWord8, but then we'll probably lose most of the
benefits of using the library.
Perhaps we could think about introducing some encoding
Steve Schafer wrote:
Neil Bartlett wrote:
It also highlights some of the misconceptions that still exist and
need to be challenged, e.g. the idea that Haskell is too hard or is
impractical for real work.
Haskell _is_ hard, although I don't think it's _too_ hard, or I wouldn't
be here,
I thought it was very telling that, at the end of the interview, when
the interview asked, In general, where is programming going?, the
responses were all things that haskell is good at. Shame it's such an
impractical language.
On 1/26/07, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Arie Peterson wrote:
Using DrIFT would probably automate the deriving just as well, but in my
particular situation TH support is easier to maintain than DrIFT support.
DrIFT as of 2.2.1 now supports binary for this package. using it is as
simple as
At Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:23:26 -0800,
David Roundy wrote:
I would think that what we'd want to benchmark would be clean, optimized
actually-used code.
Maybe there should be two versions of each benchmark:
1) an clean, simple, idiomatic version, aka the code we would like to
write if
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:34 -0800, Chad Scherrer wrote:
This seems like a natural thing to have around, but it's not in GHC
6.6...
newTArrayIO :: (Enum i, Ix i) = (i, i) - a - IO (TArray i a)
newTArrayIO (a,b) = liftM (TArray . listArray (a,b)) . sequence .
zipWith ignore [a..b] . repeat .
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 23:26 +0100, Mattias Bengtsson wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:34 -0800, Chad Scherrer wrote:
This seems like a natural thing to have around, but it's not in GHC
6.6...
newTArrayIO :: (Enum i, Ix i) = (i, i) - a - IO (TArray i a)
newTArrayIO (a,b) = liftM (TArray
Hello,
I'm trying to write a simple function to time an application.
-- this doesn't work
time f x =
do n1 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
let res = f x in
do n2 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
return (res,n2 - n1)
On a function that takes 8 seconds to complete, returns
(True,4600)
seanmcl:
Hello,
I'm trying to write a simple function to time an application.
-- this doesn't work
time f x =
do n1 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
let res = f x in
do n2 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
return (res,n2 - n1)
On a function that takes 8 seconds to complete,
On Jan 26, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Sean McLaughlin wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to write a simple function to time an application.
-- this doesn't work
time f x =
do n1 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
let res = f x in
do n2 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
return (res,n2 - n1)
On a function that
lemming:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Binary: high performance, pure binary serialisation for Haskell
--
The Binary Strike Team is pleased to announce the release of a new,
tomasz.zielonka:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:31:28PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Binary: high performance, pure binary serialisation for Haskell
john:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:42:48PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
I also have to use a specific serialisation format. I guess we could
both simply use putWord8, but then we'll probably lose most of the
benefits of using the library.
Perhaps we could think about introducing some
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
lemming:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Binary: high performance, pure binary serialisation for Haskell
--
The Binary Strike Team is pleased to announce the
tomasz.zielonka:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:16:22PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
We believe so, and its a bug if this is not the case.
The src documents the encoding format used for each type (we were unable
to attach haddocks to instances.. grr.)
All data is encoded in
On 26/01/07, Sean McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to write a simple function to time an application.
-- this doesn't work
time f x =
do n1 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
let res = f x in
do n2 - CPUTime.getCPUTime
return (res,n2 - n1)
On a function
Well, I'm a bit suspicious if the top references on Haskell
concurrency are either research papers or compiler manual sections.
How about some good ol' bundles of them codes to peruse and take
example from? E.g., dining philosophers?
Cheers,
Alexy
___
deliverable:
Well, I'm a bit suspicious if the top references on Haskell
concurrency are either research papers or compiler manual sections.
How about some good ol' bundles of them codes to peruse and take
example from? E.g., dining philosophers?
The point was that there are *lots* of
impractical language, only useful for research. Erik Meijer at one point
states that programming in Haskell is too hard and compares it to assembly
programming!
He brings up a very good point. Using a monad lets you deal with
side effects but also forces the programmer to specify an exact
On 1/26/07, Steve Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:13:43 - (GMT), you wrote:
world. It also highlights some of the misconceptions that still exist and
need to be challenged, e.g. the idea that Haskell is too hard or is
impractical for real work.
Haskell _is_ hard,
On 1/26/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have a PhD in computer science from Princeton, so your measure of
what's hard and what isn't in this regard is nearly worthless.
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's difficulty are too
catamorphism:
On 1/26/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have a PhD in computer science from Princeton, so your measure of
what's hard and what isn't in this regard is nearly worthless.
I find it incredibly insulting for you to assert that people who
complain about Haskell's
46 matches
Mail list logo
