On 25 July 2011 14:31, Mark Spezzano wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the response. The first part works well with minor modifications.
>
> Part 2 is still a bit vague to me. I basically want to "clamp" the Integers
> generated within the Queue to between 0 and some positive number. At present
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the response. The first part works well with minor modifications.
Part 2 is still a bit vague to me. I basically want to "clamp" the Integers
generated within the Queue to between 0 and some positive number. At present
they're giving me numbers all over the place (specific
Out of (perhaps naive) curiosity, what difficulties does allowing such
overriding introduce? Wouldn't the module system prevent the ambiguity
of which implementation to use?
August Sodora
aug...@gmail.com
(201) 280-8138
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> On 25 Jul
On 25 July 2011 13:50, Sebastien Zany wrote:
> I was thinking the reverse. We can already give default implementations of
> class operations that can be overridden by giving them explicitly when we
> declare instances, so why shouldn't we be able to give default
> implementations of operations
I was thinking the reverse. We can already give default implementations of
class operations that can be overridden by giving them explicitly when we
declare instances, so why shouldn't we be able to give default implementations
of operations of more general classes, which could be overridden by
On 7/24/11 10:09 PM, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
>>
>> because list is a (the?) free monoid.
>
> Yes, all free monoids are isomorphic (to lists).
>
> Sebastian
For completeness...
The free monoid over a set S is the set of all finite sequences of
elements drawn from S. Often this is written with t
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 19:29 +0100, Julian Porter wrote:
>
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:19, KC wrote:
>
> > I like the following but again "+" denotes addition and not a
> > general
> > binary operation.
> >
> >
> > > I personally often define the alias:
> > >
> > > (<+>) = mappend
> >
> > A
On 7/24/11 2:29 PM, Julian Porter wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:19, KC wrote:
>> A lot of math books use "+" or "x" enclosed in a circle to indicate
>> that the usual meaning of "+" nor "x" is intended for the meaning of
>> the binary operation.
>
> Er no. Both symbols have extremely precise mean
>
> because list is a (the?) free monoid.
Yes, all free monoids are isomorphic (to lists).
Sebastian
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi David,
no there is no direct relationship to distributed haskell.
Quid2's focus is not so much on extending Haskell itself and its
runtime to work in a distributed fashion but rather to provide a
global naming system for functional values.
Very similar to the Web, whose main innovation is to
Hello Sean,
thanks for taking the time to road test quid2.org.
And believe me, I totally feel your pain :-)
I have just started using it in earnest myself (following the great
"eat you own dog food" principle) and I know how frustrating the whole
experience is.
However, I am working on it daily
> So is the change taking effect?
>
>> We were approaching consensus for the addition of of:
>> infixr 6 <>
>
>> (<>) :: Monoid m => m -> m -> m
>> (<>) = mappend
>> and a matching change for (<+>) in the pretty package.
>
>> It was also suggested to make (<>) a method of Monoid and insert the
>>
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM, KC wrote:
> It would be easier for beginners to "grok".
>
I think that assumes that all beginners have a strong foundation in
algebra. Although it does have the advantage that the names are as
abstract as the class.
Antoine
> --
> --
> Regards,
> KC
>
> ___
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 21:14 +0900, Maciej Wos wrote:
> Personally, I have nothing against mempty (although I agree that mid
> makes more sense), but I don't like mappend at all. I wonder what
> happened to the idea of using <> instead of mappend (that's what I
> always do). I think
>
> a <> b <> c
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:30:56 -0700, Mark Spezzano
wrote:
Hi all,
I would appreciate it if someone can point me in the right direction
with the following problem.
I'm deliberately implementing a naive Queues packages that uses finite
lists as the underlying representation. I've already
Yes, this has sort-of been agreed upon in a GHC ticket about a year
ago: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3339
I had a patch in Darcs, but then came the switch to Git. I ported it
to Git, but didn't iron out all the issues. That was quite a while
ago so it's currently a bit bitrotten.
On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:19, KC wrote:
> I like the following but again "+" denotes addition and not a general
> binary operation.
>
>
>> I personally often define the alias:
>>
>> (<+>) = mappend
>
> A lot of math books use "+" or "x" enclosed in a circle to indicate
> that the usual meaning o
I like the following but again "+" denotes addition and not a general
binary operation.
> I personally often define the alias:
>
> (<+>) = mappend
A lot of math books use "+" or "x" enclosed in a circle to indicate
that the usual meaning of "+" nor "x" is intended for the meaning of
the binary o
Since the program only needs to finish a line after it's made a bulk
copy of a potentially large chunk of a file (could be 25 - 500 mb), I
was hoping to find a way to copy the large chunk in constant memory
and without inspecting the individual bytes/characters. I'm still
having some difficulty wit
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Yves Parès wrote:
> If you used Data.Enumerator.Text, you would maybe benefit the "lines"
> function:
>
> lines :: Monad m => Enumeratee Text Text m b
It gets arbitrary blocks of text and outputs lines of text.
> But there is something I don't get with that sign
If you used Data.Enumerator.Text, you would maybe benefit the "lines"
function:
lines :: Monad m => Enumeratee Text Text m b
But there is something I don't get with that signature:
why isn't it:
lines :: Monad m => Enumeratee Text [Text] m b
??
2011/7/23 Eric Rasmussen
> Hi Felipe,
>
> Thank
Don't forget that some languages use <> to mean "different" (as if
"different" meant always "superior or inferior"...), so some beginners might
get confused.
I personally often define the alias:
(<+>) = mappend
2011/7/24 Maciej Wos
> Personally, I have nothing against mempty (although I agree
Hi all,
I would appreciate it if someone can point me in the right direction with the
following problem.
I'm deliberately implementing a naive Queues packages that uses finite lists as
the underlying representation. I've already read through Hughes' paper and the
article in The Fun of Programm
Personally, I have nothing against mempty (although I agree that mid makes
more sense), but I don't like mappend at all. I wonder what happened to the
idea of using <> instead of mappend (that's what I always do). I think
a <> b <> c
looks so much better than
a `mappend` b `mappend` c
and it so
On 24 July 2011 21:11, Joris Putcuyps wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:25:53 -0700
> Greg Weber wrote:
>
>> I think the haddock description field is a great barrior to
>> documentation. I don't want to clutter my cabal file with lengthy
>> documentation. Michael Snoyberg and I could not figure out
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:25:53 -0700
Greg Weber wrote:
> I think the haddock description field is a great barrior to
> documentation. I don't want to clutter my cabal file with lengthy
> documentation. Michael Snoyberg and I could not figure out how to
> document the Hamlet syntax because there is
26 matches
Mail list logo
