There are two flavours of MonadState, Control.Monad.State.Lazy and
Control.Monad.State.Strict. There are two flavours of ByteString,
Data.ByteString.Lazy and Data.Bytestring (whose doc says strict).
There are two flavours of I/O libraries, lazy and strict. There are
advices of the form: the
Haisheng Wu freizl at gmail.com writes:
Turns out that those guys doing start-up with Haskell are already expert
at Haskell. Hence choosing Haskell is more straightforward.
We hope to become experts while doing Haskell.
I'm thinking of using Haskell since it looks cool and beautiful.
Hi Tom!
[...]
Currently I'm using a monad that combines Parsec (with MIDI event
stream) and a Writer (that writes commands that should result in IO). It's
done in a way that during running the monad, many parses can be done and
failing parses roll back the parser state so that a new
When I explain to people what strict/lazy/eager mean, I often say something
like :
- Adjectives eager and lazy apply *only* to a global evaluation method: *
eager* is C evaluation style and *lazy* is that of Haskell.
- Adjective strict can be applied *both* to a global evaluation method and
a
- Adjective strict can be applied *both* to a global evaluation method
and a specific function: if applied to an eval method then it's a synonym
of strict
I of course meant a synonym of *eager*. Sorry.
I admit this definition might be a little liberal, but it helps understand.
2011/12/28 Yves
Le Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:30:20 -0800,
Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com a écrit :
So we give meaning to syntax through our semantics. That is what this
whole conversation is all about. I am proposing we give Haskell
bottoms semantics that bring it in line with the bottoms from various
I got a glimpse of understanding of what you are talking about after
reading the wiki [1].
Still difficult to reason about the difference between lazy and
non-strict without taking a look at the text.
I hope somebody will make an effort to better explain the differences
and persist it in the
I did read other wiki pages, and I guess I finally got it.
Anyone who still feel lost, take a look at them [1,2,3,4].
If the HaskellWiki is right, then the Wikipedia article for evaluation
strategies [5] is a bit misleading, as it classifies optimistic
evaluation under nondeterministic strategies
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:32:13PM +0400, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
2011/12/26 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Eugene Kirpichov ekirpic...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Heinrich,
Thanks, that's sure some food for thought!
A few notes:
* This is
Thiago Negri evoh...@gmail.com writes:
Lazy evaluation is one implementation of non-strict semantics, where
the arguments are evaluated only when they are needed.
I would say this:
* non-strict semantics require that no argument is evaluated
unless needed.
* lazy evaluation is an
2011/12/28 Jon Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk:
* non-strict semantics require that no argument is evaluated
unless needed.
That's not the case on optimistic evaluation.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Thiago Negri evoh...@gmail.com writes:
2011/12/28 Jon Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk:
* non-strict semantics require that no argument is evaluated
unless needed.
That's not the case on optimistic evaluation.
Oops, yes. I should have said something like “non-strict
semantics require
This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere
before, but it does seem to be implicit in a lot of explanations - in
particular the description of Monads in SBCs Tackling the Awkward
Squad. I'm entirely
Le Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:39:52 +,
Steve Horne sh006d3...@blueyonder.co.uk a écrit :
This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere
before, but it does seem to be implicit in a lot of explanations -
Steve Horne wrote:
This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere
before, but it does seem to be implicit in a lot of explanations - in
particular the description of Monads in SBCs Tackling the Awkward
John Lato wrote:
From: Heinrich Apfelmus apfel...@quantentunnel.de
* Meta-programming / partial evaluation. When designing a DSL, it is
often the case that you know how to write an optimizing compiler for
your DSL because it's usually a first-order language. However, trying to
squeeze that into
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce the release of HaskellNet, version 0.3. Get
it on Hackage:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaskellNet-0.3
This release has quite a few changes; to get a comprehensive summary,
see the CHANGELOG included in the package. My aim with this release
was to get
Hello Heinrich,
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Heinrich Apfelmus
apfel...@quantentunnel.de wrote:
Sebastian Fischer wrote:
all functions defined in terms of `ListTo` and `interpret`
are spine strict - they return a result only after consuming all input
list
constructors.
Indeed, the
On 28/12/2011 20:44, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Steve Horne wrote:
This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere
before, but it does seem to be implicit in a lot of explanations - in
particular the
Hi all,
I just received a bug report from a client that, when an input file is
open in FrameMaker, my program gives a permission denied error. This
bug is reproducible with a simple Haskell program:
import System.IO
main = do
putStrLn here1
h - openFile filename.txt ReadMode
Le 28/12/2011 22:45, Steve Horne a écrit :
Yes - AT COMPILE TIME by the principle of referential transparency it
always returns the same action. However, the whole point of that
action is that it might potentially be executed (with potentially
side-effecting results) at run-time. Pure at
Hello all,
SBV 0.9.24 is out: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sbv
In short, SBV allows for scripting SMT solvers directly within
Haskell, with built-in support for bit-vectors and unbounded integers.
(Microsoft's Z3 SMT solver, and SRI's Yices can be used as backends.)
New in this release
On 28/12/2011 22:01, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Le 28/12/2011 22:45, Steve Horne a écrit :
Yes - AT COMPILE TIME by the principle of referential transparency it
always returns the same action. However, the whole point of that
action is that it might potentially be executed (with potentially
On 29 December 2011 10:51, Steve Horne sh006d3...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
As Simon Baron-Cohen says in Tackling the Awkward Squad...
I think you've mixed up your Simons; that should be Simon Peyton Jones.
Cheers,
Bernie.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
On 28/12/2011 23:56, Bernie Pope wrote:
On 29 December 2011 10:51, Steve Hornesh006d3...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
As Simon Baron-Cohen says in Tackling the Awkward Squad...
I think you've mixed up your Simons; that should be Simon Peyton Jones.
Oops - sorry about that.
FWIW - I'm diagnosed
We can do functional programming on Java. We use all the design patterns
for that.
At the very end, everything is just some noisy, hairy, side-effectfull,
gotofull machinery code.
The beauty of Haskell is that it allows you to limit the things you need to
reason about. If I see a function with
Sorry for the delay. I've written a couple of long replies already, and
both times when I'd finished deleting all the stupid stuff there was
nothing left - it seems I'm so focussed on my own view, I'm struggling
with anything else today. Maybe a third try...
On 28/12/2011 19:38, AUGER Cédric
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
Hi all,
I just received a bug report from a client that, when an input file is
open in FrameMaker, my program gives a permission denied error. This
bug is reproducible with a simple Haskell program:
import System.IO
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Steve Horne
sh006d3...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On 28/12/2011 20:44, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Steve Horne wrote:
This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere before,
On 29/12/2011 00:57, Thiago Negri wrote:
We can do functional programming on Java. We use all the design
patterns for that.
At the very end, everything is just some noisy, hairy,
side-effectfull, gotofull machinery code.
The beauty of Haskell is that it allows you to limit the things you
need
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
When GHC opens files for reading, it asks windows to disallow write
access to the file. I'm guessing that Framemaker has the file open for
writing, so GHC can't get that permission.
In fact, this is required
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:10:03 +1300, chris...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, this is required behavior according to the Haskell Report:
Implementations should enforce as far as possible, at least locally
to the Haskell process, multiple-reader single-writer locking on
files. That is, there may
On 29/12/2011 01:53, Antoine Latter wrote:
The beauty of the IO monad is that it doesn't change anything about
purity. Applying the function
bar :: Int - IO Int
to the value 2 will always give the same result:
Yes - AT COMPILE TIME by the principle of referential transparency it always
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
Hi all,
I just received a bug report from a client that, when an input file is
open in FrameMaker, my program gives a permission denied error. This
bug is reproducible with a simple Haskell program:
This bug and its
34 matches
Mail list logo
