The problem was noted in this thread a couple of months ago:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-June/078914.html
I'm not sure what the resolution was.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Henning Thielemann schlepp...@henning-thielemann.de writes:
about functional programming jobs in investment banking ...
I don't think this is bad: having talented people recruited to work
on functional programming will improve the technology for all of us.
I'm not sure I follow this opinion
Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl wrote:
On 8/2/10 7:09, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Given the definition of a Haskell function, Haskell is a pure
language. The notion of a function in other languages is not:
int randomNumber();
The result of this function is an
Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Excerpts from Ertugrul Soeylemez's message of Tue Aug 10 03:40:02 -0400 2010:
Then you can only run evalCont, if r = a, which makes that function
quite pointless:
evalCont :: Cont r r - r
evalCont = runCont id
Ah, yes, that was what I was
On 11 Aug 2010, at 12:39, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl wrote:
On 8/2/10 7:09, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Given the definition of a Haskell function, Haskell is a pure
language. The notion of a function in other languages is not:
int
Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 Aug 2010, at 12:39, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl wrote:
On 8/2/10 7:09, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Given the definition of a Haskell function, Haskell is a pure
language. The notion of a
On 11 Aug 2010, at 14:17, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between an IO computation's result and
a Haskell function's result. The IO computation is simply a value, not
a function.
That's a rather odd distinction to make – a function is simply a value in a
On 11 Aug 2010, at 14:17, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between an IO computation's result and
a Haskell function's result. The IO computation is simply a value, not
a function.
That's a rather odd distinction to make a function is simply a value in
a
Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com writes:
In contrast, in a pure functional language there are no reads and
writes, so all the pure part has zero overhead. Only when you do
readTVar' and 'writeTVar' do you pay the overhead; these are a tiny
fraction of all memory accesses.
I'm
Dear Cafe,
I wonder who is maintaining the ghc package in macports, and what the
current stategy of doing things is?
http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=namesubstr=ghc (ghc 6.10.4)
Personally, I'd like to use the macports version, if the ghc version there
was resonably recent (having 2
Hi all,
I'm trying to write a function (I'll call it `vtuple' for lack of a better
name)
that returns a function that itself returns multiple arguments in the form
of a
tuple. For example:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE
Seconded.
I've started using the Haskell Platform mainly because the ports
version is out of date.
Unfortunately it keeps getting pulled in as a dependency of something
even though I'm not using it.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Ozgur Akgun ozgurak...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Cafe,
I wonder
Hi,
ImProve [1] is a little imperative DSL that compiles to C code.
Intended for high assurance embedded applications, ImProve is also an
infinite state, unbounded model checker. Meaning ImProve can verify
assertions in a program will always be true. Here's an example:
module Main where
It looks like there's a bug in the Haskell platform binary build for
Windows. If someone could point me at their bugtrack database I'd be
happy to submit a report.
-- ryan
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Tetley
stephen.tet...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem was noted in this thread a
There's no (safe) way to go from
a - IO b
to
IO (a - b)
which is part of what vtuple does.
Consider
foo :: Int - IO String
foo 0 = return zero
foo _ = launchMissles return fired!
How would you implement foo2 :: IO (Int - String) with the same behavior?
You can't; you would somehow need to
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the reply. The specification I've given is just to illustrate the
kind of relationship I'm trying to establish between the types of the
argument and the result. In reality the type of the argument function is
something a little more usable; you could generalise it with type
Hello Will,
2010/8/11 Will Jones w...@sacharissa.co.uk:
I'm trying to write a function (I'll call it `vtuple' for lack of a better
name)
that returns a function that itself returns multiple arguments in the form
of a
tuple. For example:
vtuple f :: IO (Int - (Int, ()))
vtuple g :: IO (Int
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 9:49:07 am mo...@deepbondi.net wrote:
The mixture is not as free as some would like; the fact that Haskell has
this distinction between monadic actions and pure values (and the fact
that the former can be manipulated as an instance of the latter) means
that the
Will Jones wrote:
f :: Int - IO ()
f = undefined
g :: Int - Int - IO ()
g = undefined
h :: Int - Int - Int - IO ()
h = undefined
vtuple f :: IO (Int - (Int, ()))
vtuple g :: IO (Int - Int - (Int, (Int, (
I've tried to type vtuple using a type class; [...]
I've thought about
Dan Doel wrote:
But, to get back
to BASIC, or C, if the language you're extending is an empty language that
does nothing, then remaining pure to it isn't interesting. I can't actually
write significant portions of my program in such a language, so all I'm left
with is the DSL, which doesn't
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 3:13:56 pm Tillmann Rendel wrote:
I understand your argument to be the following: Functional languages are
built upon the lambda calculus, so a *pure* functional language has to
preserve the equational theory of the lambda calculus, including, for
example, beta
On 11 Aug 2010, at 08:30, Ketil Malde wrote:
ng on FP in general as well.
But as I interpreted this thread, the premise was not about the
morality
of specific sectors, but rather that finance takes away too much of
the FP talent. My opinion is that we should rather appreciate
business
Investment banking isn't likely to lead to improvements in zygohistomorphic
prepromorphisms.
Given that an investment bank could (purely hypothetically of course ;-)
use - say - paramorphisms as their fundamental approach to processing a
deeply-embedded DSEL, I wouldn't be too quick to
On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Sure, if the premise is that investment banks (or the military) are evil,
then it is morally questionable to support them. If these are the
major consumers of functional programming, one might question the ethics
of working on FP in general as
New technologies are usually introduced by smart people who have the vision,
and drive to communicate the benefits of doing it differently and usually
better to their peers, and seniors.
Few senior IT people will have any FP knowledge, or maybe exposure to the
mathematical or CS fundamentals
==
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
WGP 2010
6th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Generic Programming
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Sunday,
26 matches
Mail list logo
