-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/4/10 00:29 , Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> David Menendez writes:
>> I believe the point is that Template Haskell can see the internal
>> structure of a type even when the constructors are not exported. The
>> question is whether or not that is
David Menendez writes:
> I believe the point is that Template Haskell can see the internal
> structure of a type even when the constructors are not exported. The
> question is whether or not that is intentional.
I was under the impression that the question was whether the hiding of
the construct
On Saturday 03 July 2010 10:52:31 pm Felipe Lessa wrote:
> I understood your explanation. However, is this an implementation
> detail/bug or is it an intended feature?
Well, I wouldn't call it a bug. Perhaps it could be called a lack of a
feature, because one can imagine such pattern matches bei
I suppose that what qualifies as a good Haskell candidate depends on what you
are looking for in a software engineer in general. For my part, having hired
engineers into various groups over the last 20+ years, I've always preferred to
hire people who demonstrate a broad understanding of computin
Hello!
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
> The problem is instantiation. SomeMonad is a constructor for the type
>
> SomeMonad s a
>
> for any *particular* s and a. But the type:
>
> forall s. SomeMonad s a
>
> is not that type. That type doesn't have constructors (proper) at all,
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:28:44 -0700, Dan Doel wrote:
As a side note, although I agree it abuses the fundeps intent, it was handy
for the specific purpose I was implementing to have a "no-op/passthrough"
instance of op. In general I like the typedef approach better, but it
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> Serguey Zefirov writes:
>
I cannot directly create my own class instances for them because of
that. But I found that I can write Template Haskell code that could do
that - those data types could be reified just fine.
>
On Sunday 04 July 2010 01:27:19, Patrick Browne wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to understand the Peano module below.
> I do wish to implement or improve the code.
> I am unsure of the semantics of (suc = Suc) and then the subsequent use
> of (Suc n)
> Is this an example of type-level programming?
No
On Saturday 03 July 2010 7:24:17 pm Yves Parès wrote:
> I'm trying to implement the type protection used by ST to prevent a monad
> from returning a certain type.
> There's my code:
>
> import Control.Monad.Identity
>
> newtype SomeMonad s a = SomeMonad { unSome :: Identity a }
> deriving (Mona
Hi,
I would like to understand the Peano module below.
I do wish to implement or improve the code.
I am unsure of the semantics of (suc = Suc) and then the subsequent use
of (Suc n)
Look's like author would like to declare an increment function instead
of suc lately.
Is this an example of
On Jul 3, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> class Container c => Functor c where
> fmap :: (Functor cx, Functor cy, Element cx ~ x, Element cy ~ y) => (x ->
> y) -> (cx -> cy)
>
> However, this fails horribly: The type signature fails to mention c.
You have to mention c, this means an
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Yves Parès wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I'm trying to implement the type protection used by ST to prevent a monad
> from returning a certain type.
> There's my code:
>
> import Control.Monad.Identity
>
> newtype SomeMonad s a = SomeMonad { unSome :: Identity a }
>
For me the easiest way to understand something like this is to follow
the transformations of the code. Here's how your examples evaluate:
> let t1 = plus (Suc (Zero)) (Suc ( Suc (Zero)))
t1 = plus (Suc (Zero)) (Suc ( Suc (Zero)))
= Suc (plus (Suc (Zero)) (Suc (Zero)))
= Suc (Suc (plus (Suc
begin Andrew Coppin quotation:
> Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> >See above:
> >-- Dynamic components may be retrieved with 'get', static components
> >-- with 'ask'.
> >
> >So you use ask to get some configuration variable (reader monad is used
> >for configuration in xmonad) and get/put/modify to deal w
> As I say, every time I've tried to do this, I end up writing a function to
> "run this stuff", and it typically takes a few hours to reach the point
> where it type-checks.
It took me a while the first time, but then I just learned the pattern
and I do it that way every time. Here's my pattern:
Hi,
I would like to understand the Peano module below.
I do wish to implement or improve the code.
I am unsure of the semantics of (suc = Suc) and then the subsequent use
of (Suc n)
Is this an example of type-level programming?
module Peano where
data Nat = Zero | Suc Nat deriving Show
class Pe
Hello everybody,
I'm trying to implement the type protection used by ST to prevent a monad
from returning a certain type.
There's my code:
import Control.Monad.Identity
newtype SomeMonad s a = SomeMonad { unSome :: Identity a }
deriving (Monad)
newtype SomeType s = SomeType Int
runSomeMonad
Serguey Zefirov writes:
>>> I cannot directly create my own class instances for them because of
>>> that. But I found that I can write Template Haskell code that could do
>>> that - those data types could be reified just fine.
>> Huh? Sure you can write class instances for them.
>> ,
>> | in
>> I cannot directly create my own class instances for them because of
>> that. But I found that I can write Template Haskell code that could do
>> that - those data types could be reified just fine.
> Huh? Sure you can write class instances for them.
> ,
> | instance SizeOf (Map k v) where
>
Serguey Zefirov writes:
> Data.Map.Map and Data.Set.Set are exported abstractly, without
> exposing knowledge about their internal structure.
>
> I cannot directly create my own class instances for them because of
> that. But I found that I can write Template Haskell code that could do
> that - t
On 03/07/2010 21:11, Stephen Tetley wrote:
For an applicative parser - many is the same combinator as Parsec's
many and some is many1.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Exce
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Andrew Coppin [2010-07-03 15:07:17+0100]
In my experience, defining a type representing several stacked monad
transformers is the easy part.
Of course it is. It wasn't my intention just to show you how easy it is
to define a newtype in Haskell :)
I just showe
Data.Map.Map and Data.Set.Set are exported abstractly, without
exposing knowledge about their internal structure.
I cannot directly create my own class instances for them because of
that. But I found that I can write Template Haskell code that could do
that - those data types could be reified just
On Saturday 03 July 2010 4:01:12 pm Kevin Quick wrote:
> As a side note, although I agree it abuses the fundeps intent, it was handy
> for the specific purpose I was implementing to have a "no-op/passthrough"
> instance of op. In general I like the typedef approach better, but it
> looks like I mu
For an applicative parser - many is the same combinator as Parsec's
many and some is many1.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Saturday 03 July 2010 3:57:34 pm Thomas Hartman wrote:
> When I load up Control.Applicative in ghci and try, eg
>
> many [1,2] or many (Just 1) or some [1,2] or some (Just 1)
>
> this never returns.
>
> What are the practical uses of these combinators, or for using the
> Alternative class in
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:48:56 -0700, Dan Doel wrote:
Then the instance declares infinitely many instances C Bool a a. This is a
violation of the fundep. Based on your error message, it looks like it ends up
treating the instance as the first concrete 'a' it comes across, but who
knows?
Hmmm..
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Alexey Khudyakov
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM, braver wrote:
>> I dump results of a computation as a Data.Trie of [(Int,Float)]. It
>> contains about 5 million entries, with the lists of 35 or less pairs
>> each. It takes 8 minutes to load with Data.B
When I load up Control.Applicative in ghci and try, eg
many [1,2] or many (Just 1) or some [1,2] or some (Just 1)
this never returns.
What are the practical uses of these combinators, or for using the
Alternative class in general?
___
Haskell-Cafe mail
On Saturday 03 July 2010 2:11:37 pm David Menendez wrote:
> > {-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
> > {-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-}
> > {-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-}
> >
> > class C a b c | a -> b, a -> c where
> >op :: a -> b -> c
> >
> > instance C Bo
* Andrew Coppin [2010-07-03 15:07:17+0100]
> Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> >* Andrew Coppin [2010-07-03 14:20:14+0100]
> >>In my experience, using more than one monad transformer at once makes
> >>code utterly incomprehensible.
> >
> >See X monad (xmonad) for an counterexample.
> >
> >-- | The X monad
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM, braver wrote:
> I dump results of a computation as a Data.Trie of [(Int,Float)]. It
> contains about 5 million entries, with the lists of 35 or less pairs
> each. It takes 8 minutes to load with Data.Binary and lookup a single
> key. What can take so long? If I
Back to initial topic, I have a sudden fear: do you have to master Template
Haskell so as to be regarded as a guru :-{ ?
Let it be no, please, let it be no...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/h
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Quick wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:14:03 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in situations where you think fundeps work and type
>> families don't. Reason: no one knows how to make fundeps work cleanly with
>> local type constraints (su
deliverable:
> I dump results of a computation as a Data.Trie of [(Int,Float)]. It
> contains about 5 million entries, with the lists of 35 or less pairs
> each. It takes 8 minutes to load with Data.Binary and lookup a single
> key. What can take so long? If I change from compressed to
> uncomp
I dump results of a computation as a Data.Trie of [(Int,Float)]. It
contains about 5 million entries, with the lists of 35 or less pairs
each. It takes 8 minutes to load with Data.Binary and lookup a single
key. What can take so long? If I change from compressed to
uncompressed (and then decode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 07:25 , Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Mihai Maruseac writes:
>> As a matter of fact, all of my Haskell codes didn't even touch monads.
>> I always tried to write code as simple as possible and as
>> understandable as possible (mainly for te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 08:01 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> so, the main catch for C part were OS-specific calls like
> GetPhysicalMemory - i spent lot of time reading mans. for Haskell
> part, main changes were about default directories
Even without libraries, if you
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:43 -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> * How many applications did you get?
>
> I tend to actively recruit rather than throw open the floodgates.
We did that initially. We are now very pleased that we switched track to
openly advertising. We've had many excellent peo
On 3 July 2010 15:04, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> I said "does something that doesn't fall under one of these". The identity
> monad, by contrast, does nothing that does fall under these. :-P (It falls
> under zero of these.)
Okay, how about:
The probability monad
The powerset monad
The monad of
Hello Andrew
The non-type-changing map is sometimes useful as a type class - in my
graphics lib Wumpus, I call it pointwise:
class Pointwise sh where
type Pt sh :: *
pointwise :: (Pt sh -> Pt sh) -> sh -> sh
For the graphics I want objects to be parametric on unit (which is
usually Double)
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> Felipe Lessa writes:
>> There are many many other useful C libraries that we should have
>> bindings to. For example, Hackage doesn't have any MPI bindings.
>> Could we write an MPI client in Haskell? I guess so. Is it worth it?
>
Andrew Coppin writes:
> Currently we have
>
> class Functor c where
>fmap :: (x -> y) -> (c x -> c y)
>
> This relies on c having kind * -> *. For example, Bytestring cannot be
> an instance of Functor.
>
> A cleaner solution would be to have something like
>
> class Container c where
>
Currently we have
class Functor c where
fmap :: (x -> y) -> (c x -> c y)
This relies on c having kind * -> *. For example, Bytestring cannot be
an instance of Functor.
A cleaner solution would be to have something like
class Container c where
type Element c :: *
I then attempted to
On 2 July 2010 11:56, JP Moresmau wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Coutts
> wrote:
>>
>> When we are done we intend to write up a blog post more details, e.g.
>> numbers and the range/distribution of experience among candidates. I
>> hope that will be useful to people who are in
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Andrew Coppin [2010-07-03 14:20:14+0100]
In my experience, using more than one monad transformer at once makes
code utterly incomprehensible.
See X monad (xmonad) for an counterexample.
-- | The X monad, 'ReaderT' and 'StateT' transformers over 'IO'
-- encaps
Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
- Perform unusual flow control.
- I/O (or some restricted subset of it).
Can anybod
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Stephen Tetley writes:
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
- Perform unusual flow control.
What
Stephen Tetley writes:
> On 3 July 2010 14:00, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>
>> So this argument isn't valid ;-)
>
> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
Actually, how would you call it in Hugs? Just start it
Most languages today provide a certain "glue" to bring everything
together.
Most languages today provide several kinds of glue and, while some
of those kinds are not recommended, Haskell unfortunately doesn't
provide all useful kinds of glue. Especially the module system is a
weak point: in SML,
Stephen Tetley writes:
> On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
>> Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
>> or more of:
>> - Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
>> - Perform unusual flow control.
What do you consider "unusual"?
--
I
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
> or more of:
> - Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
> - Perform unusual flow control.
> - I/O (or some restricted subset of it).
> Can anybody think of a mon
On 3 July 2010 14:18, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Stephen Tetley writes:
>
>> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
>> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
>
> People still use Hugs? :p
>
> A bit more seriously: is there any listing anywhere of which
* Andrew Coppin [2010-07-03 14:20:14+0100]
> In my experience, using more than one monad transformer at once makes
> code utterly incomprehensible.
See X monad (xmonad) for an counterexample.
-- | The X monad, 'ReaderT' and 'StateT' transformers over 'IO'
-- encapsulating the window manager conf
People still use Hugs? :p
Is there another option for quick prototyping on iPhone?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 03.07.2010, 23:18 +1000 schrieb Ivan Lazar Miljenovic:
> Stephen Tetley writes:
>
> > I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
> > remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
>
> People still use Hugs? :p
>
> A bit more seriously: is there
Felipe Lessa wrote:
Oh, so it is about monad transformers. =)
I agree that it gets harder to reason about the code. In fact,
sometimes I stack monad transformers in the wrong order.
About monad transformers, I don't really like to use them because they
can get hairy in some cases, and be
Stephen Tetley writes:
> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
People still use Hugs? :p
A bit more seriously: is there any listing anywhere of which extensions
Hugs supports?
Definitely serious: if anything, I
Felipe Lessa writes:
> There are many many other useful C libraries that we should have
> bindings to. For example, Hackage doesn't have any MPI bindings.
> Could we write an MPI client in Haskell? I guess so. Is it worth it?
We might get some in two weeks time at AusHac!!! http://www.haskel
On 3 July 2010 14:00, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> So this argument isn't valid ;-)
Hi Ivan
I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-
Don Stewart writes:
>
> * Maintaining Haskell98 compatability. Keep it simple. (See
>regex-posix's mistakes here)
At the risk of resurrecting an old (albeit unfinished) thread, I've just
discovered that FGL is actually not Haskell98 compatible anyway, as it
utilised the following extensions:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Andrew Coppin:
>> > Who says they do, or should?
>>
>> Don, a few emails ago.
>
> I think you missed a small detail there.
>
>> ivan.miljenovic:
>> > >> Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've
>> > >> never used a
Daniel Fischer writes:
>> > Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it. I own and have read
>> > RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
>>
>> Writing libraries that bind to C is a great way to have to use a lot of
>> hsc2hs (or c2hs), so clearly you need to contribute
On Saturday 03 July 2010 12:12:56, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library
> >> involve C? ;
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
> Haskell provides a lot of low level glue like laziness, currying and
> other very helpful language features. But what is different in Haskell
> is that it doesn't seem to provide any high level glue like other
> languages do, especially
Hello Ertugrul,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 4:25:22 PM, you wrote:
> This has proven very useful for me. My usual way is writing monad
> transformers and sticking them together, often together with concurrent
> programming.
> ... /what/ my code is
> doing, because it's written in natural language a
Ertugrul Soeylemez writes:
[snip]
> I fear that my code is already too difficult to understand for
> beginners, and it's getting worse. But then I ask myself: I've got a
> powerful language, so why shouldn't I use that power? After all I
> haven't learnt Haskell to write C code with it. And
Hello fellow Haskellers,
I'd like to discuss an interesting topic. My experience is that there
are two worlds in Haskell, which are quite separate: the pure,
algorithmic world, where you use idiomatic pure Haskell, and the
IO-driven world of state, change, threads and execution, where you use
id
Andy Stewart writes:
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic writes:
>
>> Andy Stewart writes:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have some incorrect "Read instance" make i got error "Prelude.read: no
>>> parse", and i don't know how to fix it.
>>>
>>>
>>> newtype SerializedWindow = SerializedWindow (Maybe DrawWindow)
Yves Parès writes:
> And conversely, someone who have made a C-to-Haskell binding may not be a
> Haskell guru.
>
> What about Arrows: do you think one should master them so that he could be
> regarded as experienced?
> It's kind of hard to put a border between casual Haskell and skilled
> Haskell
Hello Ivan,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 3:24:34 PM, you wrote:
>> haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
>> ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend one day on haskell
>> code and 3 days on C one, despite the fact that haskell code dealed
>> with OS interaction and C
And conversely, someone who have made a C-to-Haskell binding may not be a
Haskell guru.
What about Arrows: do you think one should master them so that he could be
regarded as experienced?
It's kind of hard to put a border between casual Haskell and skilled
Haskell, since it's a very wide language
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic writes:
> Andy Stewart writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have some incorrect "Read instance" make i got error "Prelude.read: no
>> parse", and i don't know how to fix it.
>>
>>
>> newtype SerializedWindow = SerializedWindow (Maybe DrawWindow)
>>
>> instance Show Serialized
Andy Stewart writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I have some incorrect "Read instance" make i got error "Prelude.read: no
> parse", and i don't know how to fix it.
>
>
> newtype SerializedWindow = SerializedWindow (Maybe DrawWindow)
>
> instance Show SerializedWindow where
> show _ = "SerializedWin
Mihai Maruseac writes:
> As a matter of fact, all of my Haskell codes didn't even touch monads.
> I always tried to write code as simple as possible and as
> understandable as possible (mainly for teaching purposes) and not as
> optimized as possible.
I take it you don't use IO then?
--
Ivan L
Hi all,
I have some incorrect "Read instance" make i got error "Prelude.read: no
parse", and i don't know how to fix it.
--> code start <--
newtype SerializedWindow = SerializedWindow (Maybe DrawWindow)
instance Show SerializedWindow w
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
> haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
> ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend one day on haskell
> code and 3 days on C one, despite the fact that haskell code dealed
> with OS interaction and C used purely for computations
Care to
Greetings anyone,
Some time ago I with a friend of mine implemented a toy interactive
simulator of neural network activity. It has a totally imperative design
and uses Gtk2hs for user interface parts.
The darcs repository is available here:
http://vyal.ru/code/spiking_neuro
Now we decided to
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 03.07.2010, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
> (That would suggest that Haskell is kind of a pointless exercise...)
Haskell provides pointless exercises, but even these are not pointless.
(SCNR)
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
mail: m...@joachim-breitner.de | IC
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH writes:
> On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
>> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
>
> Who says they do, or should? AFAIK it's only done for the reasons I
> mentioned (or, sometimes, for library compatibility; a native XCB li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 06:12 , Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> Who says they do, or should?
>
> Dons rather implied it... The suggestion is that someone who hasn't used
> hsc2hs is an inexperienced Haskeller... I'd
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
Who says they do, or should?
Don, a few emails ago.
Personally, I agree with you - certa
On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
>> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
>
> Who says they do, or should?
Dons rather implied it... The s
Hello Andrew,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 1:57:22 PM, you wrote:
> (I suppose I'm just bitter because any Haskell libraries involving C are
> almost guaranteed to not work on Windows...)
haskell code is easily ported between OSes, unlike C one. when i
ported my application from Win to Linux, i spend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
Who says they do, or should? AFAIK it's only done for the reasons I
mentioned (or, sometimes, for library compatibility; a native X
Andrew Coppin writes:
> Don Stewart wrote:
> So I guess that means that I don't count as a "knowledgable" Haskell
> programmer. :-(
>
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no
excuse :-)
>
> I was about to say "yeah, but RWH isn
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:22 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
written and released several libraries on Hackage, none of which are in any
way related to C. Not every l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:22 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
> written and released several libraries on Hackage, none of which are in any
> way related to C. Not every library is just a C binding, you
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Chris BROWN wrote:
>>>
>>
>> So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've
>> never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly
>> want to... I chose Haskell.)
>>
>> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to i
>>
>
> So hsc2hs is related to writing C bindings? Well, that'll be why I've
> never heard of it then; I don't understand C. (Nor do I particularly
> want to... I chose Haskell.)
>
> Besides, why in the world do Haskell libraries have to involve C? I've
> written and released several librarie
Don Stewart wrote:
So I guess that means that I don't count
as a "knowledgable" Haskell programmer. :-(
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no
excuse :-)
I was about to say "yeah, but RWH isn't that good" - and then I noticed
who I'm speaking to. ;-
On 3 Jul 2010, at 03:39, Don Stewart wrote:
> ivan.miljenovic:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never
used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what
hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection
If you use the uu-parsing libraries you will get a breadth-first search,
instead of a non-backtrcaking depth-first search of Parsec; furthermore you do
not suffer from space leaks and get your results online. In addition you get
error correction, with high-quality error messages.
The principles
Prelude> :t id :: Eq b => b -> b
id :: Eq b => b -> b :: (Eq b) => b -> b
Prelude> id :: Eq b => b -> b
:1:0:
No instance for (Show (b -> b))
arising from a use of `print' at :1:0-19
Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Show (b -> b))
In a stmt of a 'do' expres
* Vasili I. Galchin [2010-07-02 23:51:09-0500]
> Hello,
>
> Suppose I have the following fragment of a posting:
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:32:43 -0500
> From: aditya siram
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] How easy is it to hire Haskell programmers
> To: Andrew Coppin
> Cc:
Walt Rorie-Baety writes:
> My work environment is what I'd call typical US corporate - IRC nodes are
> blocked, but I can use a web-based client to access it.
I solve these kinds of problems by routing stuff through an SSH
connection to an outside server - which isn't blocked, but which could
be
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:14:03 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
I'm interested in situations where you think fundeps work and type families
don't. Reason: no one knows how to make fundeps work cleanly with local type
constraints (such as GADTs).
Simon,
I have run into a case where fundeps+
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/2/10 07:23 , Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> > I'm not sure exactly what the API would looks like, but I think basically
> > you
> > would enter/leave the state monad quite
On 02/07/10 22:41, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On 7/2/10 5:16 AM, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
It's necessary in my case since i receive chunks of data to be hashed
from the
network, and I don't want to carry a buffer of data (with potential
security
issues), until i can hash everything.
As an aside
99 matches
Mail list logo
