Hi Luke,
Thanks for your prompt response. I'll try to implement the same for my
semantics!
Cheers!
Akshay
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:12:14 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] How to Create Data Type of memory
> From: lrpal...@gmail.com
> To: akshay.v.d...@hotmail.com
> CC: haskell-cafe@hask
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Akshay Dave wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your prompt reply. Actually I am trying to convert the
> following transitive semantics to Haskell:
>
> (Memory maps I to Z)
> lookup m i = ( meaning lookup for I in memory m)
>
> evB b m = true/(while b do c od;m) -> (c; w
Hello,
"Conceptual Mathematics" has been advertised as accessible to high
school students. I would like to collect where this book is being taught to
high school students and how it is taught(heuristics). I am interested in
teaching it to students locally but I realize that these students to
Hi,
Thanks for your prompt reply. Actually I am trying to convert the following
transitive semantics to Haskell:
(Memory maps I to Z)
lookup m i = ( meaning lookup for I in memory m)
evB b m = true/(while b do c od;m) -> (c; while b do c od;m)
I have written the boolean expression and st
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Akshay Dave wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am stuck in converting the transition semantics in Haskell. Please let
> me know how to define memory data types in Haskell( like we define pointer
> in C). Prompt help would be greatly appreciated.
I'm sorry, but I can't underst
Hi All,
I am stuck in converting the transition semantics in Haskell. Please let me
know how to define memory data types in Haskell( like we define pointer in C).
Prompt help would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Akshay
_
Ho
Hi All,
I am stuck in converting the transition semantics in Haskell. Please let me
know how to define memory data types in Haskell( like we define pointer in C).
Prompt help would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Akshay
_
Ge
2009/9/6 Günther Schmidt :
> Hi Edward,
>
> I suppose you're right, I could have made this a little more detailed.
>
> I keep reading in and processing data in an accumulating way, ie. lets say I
> have a DB table (don't take this literally please, just an example), into
> in-memory records of type
Hi Edward,
I suppose you're right, I could have made this a little more detailed.
I keep reading in and processing data in an accumulating way, ie. lets say
I have a DB table (don't take this literally please, just an example),
into in-memory records of type
data MyRecord = MyRecord {
Excerpts from Günther Schmidt's message of Sun Sep 06 19:40:05 -0400 2009:
> I keep accumulating values and right now use plain tuples for that. I end
> up with a 12 element tuple and things are a bit messy.
Hi, you may want to consider using the Writer monad. [1]
> I'd like to use extensible R
Hi,
I keep accumulating values and right now use plain tuples for that. I end
up with a 12 element tuple and things are a bit messy.
I'd like to use extensible Records from HList instead, thing is I'd like
to keep putting type signatures in my code. As it turns out that seems to
be where
Yes of course Haskell records do this, but these updates are not first class.
But this kind of fusion seems rather general.
I haven't checked if the compiler already does it.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Use Haskell records:
>
> defaultWindowDescription= WindowDescr
Use Haskell records:
defaultWindowDescription= WindowDescription {title="", size=(0,0) ..}
Many modifications can be fused in a single statement. for example:
newWindowDescription= defaultWindowDescription{itle= "Haskell" ; size=
(640,480),background= Blue}
2009/9/6 Derek Elkins :
> The f
The first thing I would do i is verify that the compiler is not
already doing this.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> I've seen a couple of package being announced that provide first class
> labels, and other packages already existed for this (Grapefruit
> Record, HList, A
Will Donnelly writes:
Hi Will,
> Hi Andy,
>
> I feel that I should offer a disclaimer here: You are misusing Dyre
> somewhat by attempting to make it handle whole-program recompilation.
> It is designed to recompile a single configuration file, generally
> against an installed library form of the
Isn't freeHaskellFunPtr a required finalization procedure?
Maurício
the purpose of ForeignPtr is to attach a finalization procedure to the
object behind the pointer. for example, you can have close called
aimplicitly whenever the garbage collector finds you don't need a file
handle any more.
Palindromes
==
Palindromes is a package for finding palindromes in files.
Visit the homepage
http://www.jeuring.net/Palindromes/
Features
The primary features of Palindromes include:
* Linear-time algorithm for finding exact palindrome
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Am Sonntag 06 September 2009 13:36:57 schrieb John Lato:
>> I just discovered that changing DiffArray to a plain Array improves
>> performance of my code by almost a factor of 10. Bitten by DiffArray
>> yet again!
>
> That's strange. Compiled
Hi Andy,
I feel that I should offer a disclaimer here: You are misusing Dyre
somewhat by attempting to make it handle whole-program recompilation.
It is designed to recompile a single configuration file, generally
against an installed library form of the application. Some of its
code, specifically
Am Sonntag 06 September 2009 13:36:57 schrieb John Lato:
> I just discovered that changing DiffArray to a plain Array improves
> performance of my code by almost a factor of 10. Bitten by DiffArray
> yet again!
That's strange. Compiled without optimisations, using plain Array instead of
DiffArra
the purpose of ForeignPtr is to attach a finalization procedure to the
object behind the pointer. for example, you can have close called
aimplicitly whenever the garbage collector finds you don't need a file
handle any more. function pointers do not need finalization.
cheers,
matthias
On Sat,
I've seen a couple of package being announced that provide first class
labels, and other packages already existed for this (Grapefruit
Record, HList, Accessor, ...)
Regarding this, I have a question about the performance of multiple
composed field updates. Maybe an example.
Suppose I have a large
I think using the runTests hook and the test flag make sense,
described at
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-September/047223.html.
I released some libraries in this way, AFAIK it works well.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Christopher Lane
Hinson wrote:
>
> There are some librar
I just discovered that changing DiffArray to a plain Array improves
performance of my code by almost a factor of 10. Bitten by DiffArray
yet again!
John
-- this is no good, just change DiffArray to Array.
> update :: (Char -> [Int]) -> DiffArray Int ModP -> Char -> DiffArray Int ModP
> update lo
Hi Luke, Brian,
oh my god it works!
I'm just saying it because that's a first!
Late last night I had already suspected that laziness might be one of the
reasons why the memoization technique showed no effect on memory
consumption and after Brian's email that's exactly where I tried again,
Hello,
I agree that your answer is elegant, but it's not an efficient
algorithm in any language. How about this, keeping the rest of your
code the same?
import Data.Array.Diff
import Data.IArray
update :: (Char -> [Int]) -> DiffArray Int ModP -> Char -> DiffArray Int ModP
update lookup arr c =
Dan Doel gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday 06 September 2009 2:18:31 am David Menendez wrote:
> >
> > It turns out, pseq limits the effectiveness of strictness analysis,
> > because it forces the order of evaluation. John Meacham described this
> > pretty well last week in the Haskell' list
> >
There are some libraries that depend on QuickCheck 2, and others that
depend on QuickCheck 1. This can be a problem. AIUI, the Haskell
Platform current depends on QC1, but intends to move to QC2 soon. I also
know that the cabal mailing list has talked about some kind of
private-depends cap
On Sunday 06 September 2009 2:18:31 am David Menendez wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
> > I suppose technically, what foldl' has over foldl is that it is more
> > readily subject to optimization. Each recursive call is artificially made
> > strict in the accumulator, so it
29 matches
Mail list logo