Antoine Latter wrote:
> For Parsec, in the absence of the "try" combinator, a parser will
> never back-track once it consumes a portion of the input.
Thanks for reminding me.
> If "try" is pushed out into the leaves of you parser, you shouldn't
> run in to too much trouble with excessive backtra
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm reading John Hughes' paper "Generalizing Monads to Arrows" and found
> the statement regarding parser combinators:
>
> "... depend on the programmer using an additional combinator similar
> to Prolog's 'cut' operato
Hi all,
I'm reading John Hughes' paper "Generalizing Monads to Arrows" and found
the statement regarding parser combinators:
"... depend on the programmer using an additional combinator similar
to Prolog's 'cut' operator do declare that a parser need never
backtrack beyond a certain poin
Chris BROWN writes:
> On 29 Jun 2010, at 15:55, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>> I talked with you and Simon Thompson about this at PEPM, and at the time
>> you said that haskell-src-exts didn't have what you needed for HaRe.
>> What exactly do you need in a parser for it to be suitable for HaRe?
On 29.06.10 08:37, Ketil Malde wrote:
Albert Y.C.Lai writes:
The doc of deleteBy states: "The deleteBy function behaves like delete, but
takes a user-supplied equality predicate." A precondition is that the
user-supplied predicate is an equality predicate. (>=) is not an equality
predicate, be
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:01:54 +0200, Simon Marlow
wrote:
Comments on the draft report are welcome, before I finalise this and
sign off on Haskell 2010.
Subsection 12.3, "Language extensions", mentions the FFI as a language
extension, but FFI is now part of the standerd; the same goes for
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:56:18PM -0500, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote:
> >The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
> >accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
> >Ross Paterson call Except:
> >
> >data Exc
On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote:
Hi Michael
Good names are a problem of course.
The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
Ross Paterson call Except:
data Except err a = OK a | Failed
* Vo Minh Thu [2010-06-29 16:26:06+0200]
> 2010/6/29 Roman Cheplyaka :
> > * Stephen Tetley [2010-06-29 12:02:45+0100]
> >> The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
> >> accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
> >> Ross Paterson call Except:
>
Chris Brown wrote:
Are there any problems with putting HaRe on Hackage?
I've looked at this before and I must say it's certainly not trivial
to do this. [...] We also need to have vim and emacs scripts
available to the user after the install.
The ghc-mod package [1] provides emacs script
On 29 Jun 2010, at 15:55, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Chris BROWN writes:
>>>
>>> Of course, it would also be nice if HaRe could parse more than just
>>> Haskell98... :p (I know, I know, it isn't easy to change parsers,
>> etc.).
>>>
>>
>> HaRe works over the full Haskell 98 standard. We c
Chris BROWN writes:
>>
>> Of course, it would also be nice if HaRe could parse more than just
>> Haskell98... :p (I know, I know, it isn't easy to change parsers,
> etc.).
>>
>
> HaRe works over the full Haskell 98 standard. We certainly wish to
> move HaRe over to GHC Haskell in the future, and
2010/6/29 Roman Cheplyaka :
> * Stephen Tetley [2010-06-29 12:02:45+0100]
>> The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
>> accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
>> Ross Paterson call Except:
>>
>> data Except err a = OK a | Failed err
>>
>> The
* Stephen Tetley [2010-06-29 12:02:45+0100]
> The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
> accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
> Ross Paterson call Except:
>
> data Except err a = OK a | Failed err
>
> The names are nice and to the point, bu
Hi Ivan,
> I've tried playing with an older version of HaRe; it's build system is a
> little weird but I'm sure it can be converted into a Cabal-compatible
> format. Part of the problem if memory serves is the use of embedded
> libraries that aren't on Hackage either.
>
That's correct. HaRe bui
Hi Sebastian,
> Great, I want to try it!
>
Thanks for you interest!
> While skimming the installation instructions I wondered why I couldn't just do
>
> cabal install HaRe
>
> Are there any problems with putting HaRe on Hackage?
>
I've looked at this before and I must say it's certainly
Daniel Fischer writes:
> On Tuesday 29 June 2010 13:02:20, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>>
>> That's like asking why we have mapM and forM, etc.
>
> Yes, why?
>
> (okay, I use forM too, it's so much more readable with a short list and a
> long action)
Exactly; using "deleteBy p" (if it was fixe
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 13:02:20, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>
> That's like asking why we have mapM and forM, etc.
Yes, why?
(okay, I use forM too, it's so much more readable with a short list and a
long action)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 12:50:34, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Daniel Fischer writes:
> >> An important point of a powerful type system is to model your program
> >> so that only sensible code is legal.
> >
> > That would be an awesomely powerful type system :)
>
> Heh. But while we're waiting for it, we
Ketil Malde schrieb:
[...]
>>> I don't think there would be any doubt what 'deleteBy (<= 5) [1..10]'
>>> would do.
>> Well, if you don't know about filter, you could think it deletes all
>> elements satisfying the predicate, but apart from that, it's clear.
>
> I'd probably call it 'filter1', but
Hi Michael
Good names are a problem of course.
The "Applicative Programming with Effects Paper" has the "monodial
accumulating" applicative instance on a sum type Conor McBride and
Ross Paterson call Except:
data Except err a = OK a | Failed err
The names are nice and to the point, but they wou
Daniel Fischer writes:
> That's more common, yes (I don't remember ever having used delete(By)
> intentionally). But we've filter for that, so it wouldn't make sense to
> give delete(By) the same semantics. Hence, if you provide both names, what
> else could deleteBy do?
That's like asking wh
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 12:46:21, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>
> At most one element, yes; I question why that design decision was made
> as I'm more likely to want to delete all values rather than just the
> first one
That's more common, yes (I don't remember ever having used delete(By)
intent
Daniel Fischer writes:
>> An important point of a powerful type system is to model your program so
>> that only sensible code is legal.
> That would be an awesomely powerful type system :)
Heh. But while we're waiting for it, we can try to use what we got to
eliminate as much non-sensical code
Ketil Malde writes:
> Max Rabkin writes:
>
>> Your deleteBy is (filter . not), isn't it?
>
> With the caveat that I haven't actually used it, my impression is that
> delete only removes one element, while filter removes all of them.
At most one element, yes; I question why that design decision
Max Rabkin writes:
> Your deleteBy is (filter . not), isn't it?
With the caveat that I haven't actually used it, my impression is that
delete only removes one element, while filter removes all of them.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
_
Max Rabkin writes:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
>> deleteBy :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
>>
>> I don't think there would be any doubt what 'deleteBy (<= 5) [1..10]'
>> would do. And I just don't see what the requirement for an equivalence
>> relation buys you.
>
> Your
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 11:46:47, Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> An important point of a powerful type system is to model your program so
> that only sensible code is legal.
That would be an awesomely powerful type system :)
> This makes me wonder why deleteBy is
> defined so loosely, instead of e.g.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
> deleteBy :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
>
> I don't think there would be any doubt what 'deleteBy (<= 5) [1..10]'
> would do. And I just don't see what the requirement for an equivalence
> relation buys you.
Your deleteBy is (filter . not), is
Daniel Fischer writes:
>> Maybe it is because deleteBy is defined wrongly? i.e. it is not logical,
>> doesn't follow the common sense user might expect. It accepts any
>> predicate but narrows requirements only in docs.
> Unfortunately, you can't easily encode the requirement that it ought to be
Sebastian Fischer writes:
> Hello Chris,
>
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>> we are pleased to announce the availability of HaRe 0.6
>
> Great, I want to try it!
>
> While skimming the installation instructions I wondered why I couldn't
> just do
>
> cabal install HaRe
>
> Are there any problems with
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 10:47:40, Zura_ wrote:
> Maybe it is because deleteBy is defined wrongly? i.e. it is not logical,
> doesn't follow the common sense user might expect. It accepts any
> predicate but narrows requirements only in docs.
Unfortunately, you can't easily encode the requirement th
Maybe it is because deleteBy is defined wrongly? i.e. it is not logical,
doesn't follow the common sense user might expect. It accepts any predicate
but narrows requirements only in docs.
Maybe best could be to just take a value for comparison and use "==" against
it? ("overloaded" or "built-in"
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 19:29 -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quick question about ghci: when I do this at the prompt:
>
> ghci> :m +Control.Monad.Cont
>
> I get
>
> Ambiguous module name `Control.Monad.Cont':
>it was found in multiple packages: mtl-1.1.0.2 monads-fd-0.0.0.1
>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Tetley
wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> If you going to the trouble of constructing a sum type (obliged to be
> 2 parameter) expressly to play well with the favourite single
> parameter classes e.g. Functor/ Applicative / Monad [*], maybe it is
> worth considering
Hi Michael
If you going to the trouble of constructing a sum type (obliged to be
2 parameter) expressly to play well with the favourite single
parameter classes e.g. Functor/ Applicative / Monad [*], maybe it is
worth considering new names for the type and its constructors relating
to what the App
Hello Chris,
Chris Brown wrote:
we are pleased to announce the availability of HaRe 0.6
Great, I want to try it!
While skimming the installation instructions I wondered why I couldn't
just do
cabal install HaRe
Are there any problems with putting HaRe on Hackage?
I will probably in
37 matches
Mail list logo
