See that's typically the speech that scares people away from Haskell...
--
The ⊥ is a lie.
2011/12/24 Albert Y. C. Lai
> Most individuals of the Haskell community have long been maintaining a
> cognitive dissonance; some cases turn into plain hypocrisy. You might
> excuse it for its ancient an
Most individuals of the Haskell community have long been maintaining a
cognitive dissonance; some cases turn into plain hypocrisy. You might
excuse it for its ancient and prominent origin: Richard Bird and/or
Philip Wadler themselves wrote like "it is too lazy", "make it more
strict" 13 years a
Hi Cafe,
In the last couple of days I completed my quest of making my graphing
utility timeplot ( http://jkff.info/software/timeplotters ) not load the
whole input dataset into memory and consequently be able to deal with
datasets of any size, provided however that the amount of data to *draw* is
On 2011-12-23 13:46, Conor McBride wrote:
>
>>> The plan is to make a clearer distinction between "being" and "doing" by
>>> splitting types clearly into an effect part and a value part, in a sort
>>> of a Levy-style call-by-push-value way. The notation
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>> is a computation type whos
I've been looking for a way to compose enumeratees in the enumerator
package, but I've come up with nothing so far. I want this function
(=$=) :: Monad m => Enumeratee a0 a1 m b -> Enumeratee a1 a2 m b ->
Enumeratee a0 a2 m b
I'm building a modular library on top of enumerator that facilitates
re
I'd like to make special syntax for folds, so that fold is built in
the type definition. Maybe it can be some special
braces or just fold(..). So we can write the same function in
place of foldr, maybe, either and so on and don't have to define
them by hand.
Inside special fold-braces one can writ
On 23 Dec 2011, at 16:16, MigMit wrote:
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all
calculations being automatically lifted to a monad? What if we
want to do calculations with monadic values themselves, like, for
example, store
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
>> So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
>> automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
>> monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
>> calculations in a li
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
>> So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
>> automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
>> monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
>> calculations in a li
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Chris Wong
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck
> wrote:
>> With GHC 7.0.3:
>>
>> $ cat test.hs
>> class ℝ a where {
>> test :: a;
>> };
>>
>> (∈) :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool;
>> x ∈ (y:ys) = x == y || x ∈ ys;
>>
>> main = putStrLn "Two
Sameer,
I think that my Maude to Haskell translation was a bit too literal and naive.
But your reply helped me gain further insight to both
languages, which is essentially my current research task.
Thanks,
Pat
On 12/23/11, Sameer Sundresh wrote:On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Patrick Br
11 matches
Mail list logo
