Hi,
Don asked:
> Are we likely to see the couchdb bindings released as a standalone
> library for the wider community?
Let me explain a little bit why the CouchDB module appears in the Yhc repo.
As the next stage of the Yhc/Javascript project, I am trying to set up
a web service where people mi
On Jan 5, 2008 12:37 AM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The most notable change is the instance IsString for strict and
> lazy bytestrings, enabling bytestrings to be written as direct string
> literals, without needing 'pack'.
>
> That is, the following is valid:
>
>import Data.Byte
dave:
>On Jan 5, 2008 12:37 AM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The most notable change is the instance IsString for strict and
> lazy bytestrings, enabling bytestrings to be written as direct string
> literals, without needing 'pack'.
>
> That is, the following
Achim Schneider wrote:
> ...is a paper about automatic specialisation of functions by unboxing
> arguments, one could say. I'm only on page 6, but already survived the
> first formalisms, which is bound to mean that the rest of the paper is
> likewise accessible, as hinted on at ltu.
>
> http://ww
Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Achim Schneider wrote:
>> http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/wrapper.pdf
>>
> on page 6, stronger vs weaker seemed backwards to me... isn't (wrap ◦
> unwrap = idA) a stronger condition than (wrap ◦ unwrap ◦ body = body),
> because it tells you more, and is true in fewer cases? (wh
of this newsletter, please see the
[209]contributing information. Send stories to dons at galois.com. The
darcs repository is available at darcs get
[210]http://code.haskell.org/~dons/code/hwn/
203. http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
205. http://planet.haskell.org/
207. http:
On 2008-01-04 0:23, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello C.M.Brown,
Thursday, January 3, 2008, 10:46:54 PM, you wrote:
i don't use
type signatures at all - this creates some problems when i wrote large
portion of code and try to make it compile, but nothing more
I believe type signatures are the ve
Jonathan Cast wrote:
>>> The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of
>>> Haskell types are CPPOs.
>>> So:
>>> (1) Must be monotone
>>> (2) Must be continuous
>>> (Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting
>>> category substantially).
I wrote:
>> I'm not convin
On 4 Jan 2008, at 2:00 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:
You may be right...but learning is not an atomic thingwherever I
start I will get strange things happening.
The best place to start learning Haskell is with the simplest type
features, not the most complicated. And it's the simplest featu
On 5 Jan 2008, at 6:03 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Jonathan Cast wrote:
The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of
Haskell types are CPPOs.
So:
(1) Must be monotone
(2) Must be continuous
(Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting
category substantially).
I
10 matches
Mail list logo
