On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 14:32 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
UTF-8 supports CJK languages too. The only question is efficiency, and
I believe CJK is still a relatively uncommon case compared to English
and other Latin-alphabet languages. (That said, I live in a country all
of whose dominant
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 21:45 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Due to the additional complexity of handling UTF-8 -- EVEN IF the
actual text processed happens all to be US-ASCII -- will UTF-8
perhaps be less efficient than UTF-16, or only as fast?
UTF8 will be very slightly faster
Hi Alex,
I hope not to spoil your fun but have you had a look at this:
Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours
http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/~jdtang/scheme_in_48/tutorial/overview.html
Regards,
titto
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
PR Stanley wrote:
Yes and thanks for the reply.
When a function is declared in C the argument variable has an address
somewhere in the memory:
int f ( int x ) {
return x * x;
}
any value passed to f() is assigned to x. x is the identifier for a real
slot in the memory (the stack most likely)
The latest version of SOE comes with a wrapper for a nice GLFW library. This
library comes with a demo of a 3D bouncing Amiga ball so it must be the
best library in the world ;-) ;-)
Since I'm letting my students play with WinHugs, I would prefer to have a
WinHugs compatible version of that
Hi
The following is from the Hutton book:
Without looking at the standard prelude, define the
higher-order library function curry that converts a function
on pairs into a curried
function, and conversely, the function uncurry
that converts a curried
Hallo,
On 10/3/07, Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alex,
I hope not to spoil your fun but have you had a look at this:
Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours
http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/~jdtang/scheme_in_48/tutorial/overview.html
Yes, I'm actually using it as a
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:01:50AM +0200,
Twan van Laarhoven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
Lots of people wrote:
I want a UTF-8 bikeshed!
No, I want a UTF-16 bikeshed!
Personnally, I want an UTF-32 bikeshed. UTF-16 is as lousy as UTF-8
(for both of them,
On 10/3/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without looking at the standard prelude, define the
higher-order library function curry that converts a function
on pairs into a curried
function, and conversely, the function uncurry
that converts a
What the heck does it matter what encoding the library uses
internally?
+1 It can even use a non-standard encoding scheme if it wants.
Sounds good to me. I (think) one of my initial questions was if the
encoding should be visible in the type of the UnicodeString type or
not. My gut feeling
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 22:31 +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
On 10/3/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without looking at the standard prelude, define the
higher-order library function curry that converts a function
on pairs into a curried
function, and
Lots of external libraries contain state, but one that really contains a
*lot* of state is the OpenGL libraries, since OpenGL is specified as a
statemachine.
This means that when you're writing structured code you quite often want
to save and restore chunks of state 'automatically'. For the
In the (Win)Hugs documentation, I found
Only the ccall, stdcall and *dotnet *calling conventions are supported.
All others are flagged as errors.
However, I fail to find any more information on how to invoke dotnet
methods. This might be really handy for me, as I'm very familiar with
the
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 14:15 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:01:50AM +0200,
Twan van Laarhoven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
Lots of people wrote:
I want a UTF-8 bikeshed!
No, I want a UTF-16 bikeshed!
Personnally, I want
Hello all,
I have recently developed a small set of bindings for a C library, and
encountered a problem that I think could be interesting to others.
My problem was that the C function I was writing bindings to expects to
be passed a FILE *. So, I had basically two possibles routes to
On 10/3/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't even know about the curry and uncurry functions. I'm not
looking for the answer but some guidance would be much appreciated.
Thanks, Paul
You can look at the types without seeing the implementation, too. Just start
up GHCI and type:
Hello Maxime,
Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 7:57:58 PM, you wrote:
And then I discovered Foreign.Concurrent, which allows one to associate
a plain Haskell IO action to a pointer. The 'Foreign.Concurrent' name
is a bit misleading to me; it seems this module is named so because it
needs
Hi,
I'm playing a little bit with pointfree and function composition and
I would like to ask you if the following is theoretical correct and
how can I express it in haskell.
Imagine that I have the following functions
f :: a - b - c - d
g :: d - e
I want to compose these two
I think you want to use wrapper functions from the FFI:
type HsPlayerFinalizer = Ptr PlayerStruct - IO ()
foreign import ccall wrapper mkPlayerFinalizer :: HsPlayerFinalizer
- IO (FunPtr HsPlayerFinalizer)
You can then make an arbitrary Haskell function (including a partially
applied function
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 19:51:47 Anatoly Yakovenko wrote:
If its specifically the list instance, where we currently trade laziness
for efficiency of encoding (which may or may not be the right thing),
I'd suggest a fully lazy encoding instance?
Its not really a list, its more of a tree
On 10/3/07, Tiago Miguel Laureano Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine that I have the following functions
f :: a - b - c - d
g :: d - e
I want to compose these two functions such that:
(g . f) :: a - b - c - e
Here's a pointfree derivation of the composition function you are
Spencer Janssen wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 19:51:47 Anatoly Yakovenko wrote:
If its specifically the list instance, where we currently trade laziness
for efficiency of encoding (which may or may not be the right thing),
I'd suggest a fully lazy encoding instance?
Its not really a list,
Here is a generalized version, using type classes and some extensions.
Tiago, in order to compile this you'll have to use:
-fglasgow-exts -fallow-undecidable-instances -fallow-overlapping-instances
Cheers,
Jorge.
-
module Main where
class Pipeline t1 t2 t3 | t1 t2 - t3 where
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 05:57:58PM +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote:
I have recently developed a small set of bindings for a C library, and
encountered a problem that I think could be interesting to others.
My problem was that the C function I was writing bindings to expects to
be passed a FILE
Greetings.
I have a PC that had GHC 6.6 running on it. Worked fine. Then I
uninstalled 6.6 and installed 6.6.1, and now it doesn't appear to work
at all. Any attempt to run GHC results in a message that says
The entry point OpenThread could not be found in KERNEL32.dll.
or something very
One of the holes in real-world Haskell is you never know if a
library/function is calling unsafePerformIO and you have to trust the
library author. I recognize the necessity of the function, but should it
announce itself? unsafePerformIO has this type:
unsafePerformIO :: IO a - a
Would there
...and indeed it can't be done, except by the naive brute-force method
of comparing every subtree, possibly optimized by cryptographically
hashing a representation of every subtree, since sharing isn't an
observable property.
i was thinking that instead of having a reference to a node, each
On 10/3/07, Victor Nazarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how would you know that evil dictator uses unsafePerformIO???
You don't. unsafePerformIO can't be taken it away (there are legitimate
reasons to strip IO), which is why I wonder if it's useful at all.
p.s. CC'ed to haskell-cafe
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 14:47 -0700, Justin Bailey wrote:
One of the holes in real-world Haskell is you never know if a
library/function is calling unsafePerformIO and you have to trust the
library author. I recognize the necessity of the function, but should
it announce itself? unsafePerformIO
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 05:57:58PM +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote:
I have recently developed a small set of bindings for a C library, and
encountered a problem that I think could be interesting to others.
My problem was that the C function I was writing bindings to
On 10/4/07, Justin Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/3/07, Victor Nazarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how would you know that evil dictator uses unsafePerformIO???
You don't. unsafePerformIO can't be taken it away (there are legitimate
reasons to strip IO), which is why I wonder if
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 12:55:41AM +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote:
When writing the binding for foo_new(), I need to open a file with
fopen() to pass it the FILE *. Then I get a struct foo * that I can
easily associate the the foo_destroy() finalizer. However, when
finalizing the struct foo *
Hi,
I am trying to write an interpreter for a little functional language but I am
finding very problematic to dynamically create a typed representations of the
language terms.
I have googled around and found a few solutions but none seem to solve the
problem.
This is the example code:
I need some help with space and time leaks.
I know of two types of space leak. The first type of leak occurs when
a function uses unnecessary stack or heap space.
GHCi sum [1..10^6]
*** Exception: stack overflow
Apparently, the default definition for sum has a space leak.
I can define my own
34 matches
Mail list logo
