Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 13:08 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
That's pretty obviously a bug - Graphics.UI.Gtk.Gdk.PixbufData doesn't
fully implement the (M)Array class.
The MArray class changed in ghc-6.8 and we didn't notice until the
gtk2hs release was already out.
On Dec 3, 2007 12:39 PM, Albert Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been confussed by monad for a long time. and I can't stand for
it any more. so I start to translate the tutorial All About Monads
to my mother language Chinese.
My English is not good enough, so this work is only for my own
Try again without missing out the list...
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Incidentally, I question why the compFoo are methods. Why not just
make them polymorphic functions? They don't look like you expect
instances to change them. The code continues to compile if I make them
David Fox wrote:
Here is a practical example I ran into a few days ago. With this
expression:
writeFile path (compute text)
the file at path would be overwritten with an empty file if an error
occurs while evaluating (compute text). With this one:
writeFile path $! (compute text)
Jules Bean wrote:
Try again without missing out the list...
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Incidentally, I question why the compFoo are methods. Why not
just make them polymorphic functions? They don't look like you expect
instances to change them. The code continues to compile if
Peter Padawitz wrote:
What is so bad about making compFoo part of the class? It reduces the
code (constraints can be avoided) and reflects the close connection
between a signature Sig (implemented by the class) and the evaluation
(compFoo) of Sig-terms in Sig-algebras.
making it part of the
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 10:40 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
What do I need to compile the darcs version? Just GHC? Or do I need the
GTK+ header files? (Remember, I'm on Windows here.)
Ah, that's a bit harder. It's not for the feint of heart.
I've not updated the instructions in a while. The old
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 10:36 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess you could get pretty far using 'interact' - far enough
in an educational setting to do lists and Maybe, and then monads,
before introducing monadic IO.
Pretty far, yes, and in
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
What is so bad about making compFoo part of the class? It reduces the
code (constraints can be avoided) and reflects the close connection
between a signature Sig (implemented by the class) and the
evaluation (compFoo) of
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 07:05 schrieb Maurício:
(...)
Would you deny that any useful programme has to do at least some of
the following:
-accept programme arguments at invocation
-get input, be it from a keyboard, mouse, reading files, pipes...
-output a result
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 10:40 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
What do I need to compile the darcs version? Just GHC? Or do I need the
GTK+ header files? (Remember, I'm on Windows here.)
Ah, that's a bit harder. It's not for the feint of heart.
I've not updated the
hi I am writing a basic Parser from scratch. So far I have functions;#
removeSpaces# match - which checks if a string is a substring of another#
orParser which combines two parser's abilities# Basic pasrers like... parseInt,
parseTrue, parseFalse, parseBoolusing the orParser on True and
On Dec 10, 2007, at 0:16 , Vimal wrote:
What is the difference between In-Reply-To and References?
In-Reply-To: specifies the immediate parent message in the tree;
References: specifies a (possibly truncated) path back to the tree's
root.
--
brandon s. allbery
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 14:45 schrieb Ryan Bloor:
hi I am writing a basic Parser from scratch. So far I have functions;#
removeSpaces# match - which checks if a string is a substring of another#
orParser which combines two parser's abilities# Basic pasrers like...
parseInt, parseTrue,
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
What is so bad about making compFoo part of the class? It reduces
the code (constraints can be avoided) and reflects the close
connection between a signature Sig (implemented by the class) and
the
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
I don't see why!
In the class
class Foo a where
f :: a - Int
g :: b - Integer
g = fromIntegral . f
The equations within the class are defaults, not equations.
I must admit that I didn't know this... Nevertheless, won't you agree that
rather than ask the role of $! I found it helpful to first grasp the role
of seq, since $! is defined in terms of seq and seq is a primitive
operation (no prelude definition, like with IO, it's a given).
What helped me grasp seq was its role in a strict fold.
Basically, try to sum all the
On Dec 10, 2007 4:51 AM, Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 10:36 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Various other people write:
... lots of talk about monads and IO ...
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template, could I do it
better in Haskell? it'd be good to have a better
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 19:44 schrieb Dan Piponi:
[…]
Maybe hardened Haskell programmers don't notice these things, but
there's a wall that goes up when Haskell is presented to
non-functional programmers. There are significant barriers for them to
cross (some of them imaginary):
That’s
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 20:00 schrieb Henning Thielemann:
[…]
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
Who want Haskell to be plastered with syntactic sugar? ;-) ;-)
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
On Dec 10, 2007 7:09 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there's the fear that laziness can impact performance,
Hmm, tell them that performance isn't all and that laziness helps you to write
more modular programs.
Nah, in this case I've found it's better to realistically compare
Questioning apfelmus definitely gives me pause, but...
id :: a - a-- arity 1
id = ($) :: (a - b) - (a - b) -- arity 2
I agree with the arities given above (but without quotes) and see no
ill-definedness to arity.
But these are two different classes of functions.
In the if anyone is interested,... department
For reasons that remain unclear, early this fall I started translating
Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plaugher's classic _Software Tools in
Pascal_ into Haskell. I have completed most of it, up to the second
part of chapter 8 which presents a
We are happy to announce the first prerelease version of darcs 2! Darcs 2
will feature numerous improvements, and this prerelease will also feature a
few regressions, so we're looking for help, from both Haskell developers
and users willing to try this release out. Read below, to see how you can
On Dec 10, 2007 11:00 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
Haskell into the hands of quick and dirty hackers?. I
Hello Dan,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 9:44:06 PM, you wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
just my cent or two for this discussion: sometime ago I've started an
introduction to IO tutorial. it's both not in English and not finished
so i'll just explain its
Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
Haskell into the hands of quick and dirty hackers?. I think the
answer might be yes.
This is an interesting trade-off: if
If Haskell wants yo significantly widen it's audience then the tutorials
have to cater for the impatient.
Perhaps it's better to remain a fringe language. I truly don't know.
-- Lennart
On Dec 10, 2007 7:00 PM, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi
On 10/12/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Dan Piponi wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template,
Paul Moore after Henning Thielemann after Dan Piponi:
There are
thousands of competing programming languages out there, and there are
dozens that are viable choices for the task I just mentioned. If my
response to their question takes longer than the time it would take to
find another
Vimal wrote:
What is the difference between In-Reply-To and References?
There was a time In-Reply-To was for emails and References was for Usenet.
Nowadays emails have both In-Reply-To and References. Usenet still
sticks with just References.
___
Thomas Hartman wrote:
-- (myfoldl f q ) is a curried function that takes a list
-- If I understand currectly, in this lazy fold, this curried function
isn't applied immediately, because
-- by default the value of q is still a thunk
myfoldl f z [] = z
myfoldl f z (x:xs) = ( myfoldl f q ) xs
Maybe hardened Haskell programmers don't notice these things, but
there's a wall that goes up when Haskell is presented to
non-functional programmers. There are significant barriers for them to
cross (some of them imaginary): there's the infamous type system,
there's the mystique around monads,
Thanks, Tom, for a nice description of lazy evaluation.
Besides the minor things Derek pointed out, there's one more subtle
but important thing to correct:
At 7:29 AM + 11/29/07, Thomas Davie wrote:
$! is the special case, which means strictly apply. It evaluates
its argument first,
Hi,
Thanks for the info.
Vimal wrote:
What is the difference between In-Reply-To and References?
There was a time In-Reply-To was for emails and References was for Usenet.
My friend wrote a parser for Haskell-cafe messages from the mailman
archives as suggested.
He told that there were a
On Dec 10, 2007 1:44 PM, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When someone comes to me and says I have this Python script that
scans through these directories and finds the files that meet these
criteria and generates a report based on this template, could I do it
better in Haskell? it'd be
Henning Thielemann lemming at henning-thielemann.de writes:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| And I think that the solution is not to make the language larger and
larger
| everytime someone wants a feature but to give people the tools to provide
| features without
On 10 Dec 2007, at 11:33 AM, Dan Weston wrote:
Questioning apfelmus definitely gives me pause, but...
id :: a - a-- arity 1
id = ($) :: (a - b) - (a - b) -- arity 2
I agree with the arities given above (but without quotes) and see
no ill-definedness to arity.
I haven't been following this thread closely, but would it be rude to suggest that someone who
doesn't want to put the effort into learning the (admittedly difficult) concepts that Haskell
embodies shouldn't be using the language? Haskell was never intended to be The Next Big Popular
Language.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Anthony Clayden wrote:
I agree with Henning that HAVING is a 'terrible hack', but then SQL
altogether is a terrible hack.
Somehow, yes.
As that paper points out, HAVING is unnecessary - it's just a filter on
the result set of group-by.
Yep.
It's crucial that in
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Dan Piponi wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 11:00 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
The question isn't Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers? It's
would we get better software (using your favourite metric) if we put
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raise my question once again: Must Haskell's tutorials be tailored to
impatient programmers? Does Haskell need quickdirty hackers?
Haskell is the most practical functional language I have
Vimal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vimal wrote:
What is the difference between In-Reply-To and References?
There was a time In-Reply-To was for emails and References was for Usenet.
My friend wrote a parser for Haskell-cafe messages from the mailman
archives as suggested.
One place to look
44 matches
Mail list logo
