apfelmus wrote:
Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Loup Vaillant wrote:
Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
classes and higher order types in Haskell (and even more).
As far as names go:
for type classes, of course Wadler, but also Blott and Kaes.
for
2008/4/2, Janis Voigtlaender [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apfelmus wrote:
Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Loup Vaillant wrote:
Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
classes and higher order types in Haskell (and even more).
As far as names go:
for type
Loup Vaillant wrote:
By higher order types, I meant the type of runST (ST monad),
or dpSwich (in yampa). I meant things like
(forall a, a- b) - a - b
That's then usually called higher-rank polymorphic types, just in case
you need more keywords for literature search ;-)
--
Dr. Janis
On 2 Apr 2008, at 11:22, Henning Thielemann wrote:
It seems me it may come from an alteration of math conventions:
Normally (x) = x, and function application is written as f(x), except
for a few traditional names, like for example sin x. So if one
reasons that f(x) can be simplified to f x,
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 1 Apr 2008, at 12:40, PR Stanley wrote:
Why can't we have function application implemented outwardly
(inside-out). So
f g x would be applied with
gx first followed by its return value passed to f instead of
putting g x in brackets.
It seems
Hans Aberg writes:
...
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times, I am
still alive, so no need to say this does not work.
Jerzy
On 2 Apr 2008, at 13:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not
work in Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times,
I am
still alive, so no need to say this
Hans Aberg comments my remark to his observation:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
So, declare them, even if they are vacuous. I did it several times, I am
still alive, so no need to say this
On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is possible, of course - I did that, too. But it means that
the syntax and semantics do not work together; an invitation to
pitfalls. So this ought to be avoided, except if there are no
other workarounds.
I am more tolerant.
The
On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be better to write a new Prelude. :-)
Oh, yes, our common dream...
One may not need to write a wholly new Prelude, by something like:
module NewPrelude where
import Prelude hiding -- Num, (+).
class AdditiveSemiMonoid a where
2008/4/2, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2 Apr 2008, at 14:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It would be better to write a new Prelude. :-)
Oh, yes, our common dream...
One may not need to write a wholly new Prelude, by something like:
module NewPrelude where
import Prelude hiding
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:20, Loup Vaillant wrote:
class AdditiveSemiMonoid a where
(+) :: a - a - a
Err, why *semi* monoid? Plain monoid would not be accurate?
A monoid has a unit:
class (AdditiveSemiMonoid a) = AdditiveMonoid a where
o :: a
The semimonoid is also called semigroup, I
On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:27 , Hans Aberg wrote:
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:20, Loup Vaillant wrote:
rant
While we're at it, what about adding even more classes, like group
or ring? Algebra in a whole class hierachy. :-)
Only ambition required :-).
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:30, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
While we're at it, what about adding even more classes, like group
or ring? Algebra in a whole class hierachy. :-)
Only ambition required :-).
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Mathematical_prelude_discussion
--- go nuts.
There is
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Dan Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nor did I use to take
perfectly working code and refactor it until it cried for mercy, and then
stay awake wondering if there was some abstraction out there I was missing
that would really make it sing.
I find myself doing
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
precdence
What's the innermost function in f g x here?
test :: (a - b - c) - a - b - c
test f g x = f g x
--
Dan
2008/4/2, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you'd have to do is to give the inner most function the highest
precdence
What's the innermost function in f g x here?
test :: (a - b - c) - a - b - c
test f g x = f g x
| I'm reading the following rule from your answer:
|
| [|exp|] normally returns the unevaluated AST of exp. However, if exp
| contains
| local variables, these are lifted using Language.Haskell.TH.lift (i.e.
| evaluated
| before lifting).
|
| Is that correct?
|
|
| / Emil
|
| Yes,
Hello.
I've been playing around trying to write a framework to support/enforce access
control to resources. So far my efforts have yielded little but bruised
forehead and compressed plaster-board.
What I'd like is a solution that:
(1) prevents access to resources except via a fine-grained
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:47:04PM +0200, Alexey Rodriguez Yakushev wrote:
The Data instance that Derive generates is as follows:
instance (Data ctx a,
Data ctx (BinTree a),
Sat (ctx (BinTree a))) =
Data ctx (BinTree a) where
It seems there is no ghc 6.8.2 for my version of debian. So I am
compiling from source.
I ran config with no problem. make generated some errors. I omit all
output except the end. Let me know if Ileft something important out
please.
make all
/usr/bin/ghc -H16m -O -w -I. -Iinclude -Rghc-timing
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:12:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so it's this line that seems of the most interesting
cc1: error: unrecognized option `-fno-unit-at-a-time'
It looks like your version of ghc isn't designed to be used with the
version of gcc you have.
Putting this in
Mark Jones brought higher order polymorphism to Haskell.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Janis Voigtlaender
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Loup Vaillant wrote:
Thanks to some geniuses (could someone name them?), we have type
classes and
Apologies to Ian, I think I sent him direct mail on my first attempt to
reply.
Adding those lines to mk/build.mk did not work.
I hope Idon't have to build a newer gcc. This is what I have right now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/gcc$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/specs
2008/4/2 porrifolius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in type
signatures via inference so application code knows which are required and
type checker can reject static/dynamic role constraint violations
If you mean what I think you mean by
Hi folks,
HDBC-ODBC 1.1.4.1 has been uploaded to http://software.complete.org/hdbc-odbc
and to Hackage.
Bryn Keller reported a build problem on Windows with GHC 6.8.x, which has
been fixed.
-- John
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Hans Aberg wrote:
But one should also be able to write (f+g)(x). - This does not work in
Haskell, because Num requires an instance of Eq and Show.
You could define these instances with undefined function implementations
anyway. But also in a more cleaner type hierarchy
27 matches
Mail list logo
