Oh, I see Ross's trick. By quantifying over the domain range types, they
can later be specialized to analysis-time types (like circuit labels) or to
run-time types (like Boolean or Integer).
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
If you require the circuit to be
On 12/20/2012 08:54 PM, Daniel Feltey wrote:
You were only missing the restriction that both types a and b must be
instances of Monoid in order to make Socket a b into an instance of Monoid.
Dan Feltey
Thank you for your help. An additional question, if I might: For the
sake of elegance
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Oleksandr Manzyuk manz...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have no problems with the statement Objects of the category Hask
are Haskell types. Types are well-defined syntactic entities. But
Hi Christopher,
On 12/21/2012 09:27 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
[...]
Of course, I thought it would be likely I would want other classes and
instances with additional numbers of types:
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
instance (Monoid a, Monoid b, Monoid
Hi.
Christopher Howard писал 21.12.2012 14:27:
instance (Monoid a, Monoid b, Monoid c, Monoid d) = Monoid (Socket4
a b
c d) where
mempty = Socket4 mempty mempty mempty mempty
Socket4 a b c d `mappend` Socket4 w x y z =
Socket4 (a `mappend` w) (b `mappend` x) (c `mappend` y)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Thank you for your help. An additional question, if I might: For the
sake of elegance and simplicity, I modified the class and instances to
avoid the tuple aspect:
data Socket2 a b = Socket2 a b
instance (Monoid a, Monoid b) =
Hi,
I get the impression that blogs and planet.haskell.org are the best way
to disseminate information about new tools any more. Maybe a part of the
earlier importance has been taken over by GooglePlus, but not all,
leaving both blogs and GooglePlus less useful individually?
Anyways, I’d like to
Dear Haskellers,
I'm working on a small library for representing semigroup (or monoid)
actions on a set http://hackage.haskell.org/package/semigroups-actions.
The MultiParamTypeClasses extension seems to be best suited for the task,
as a group can act on many sets, and a set can be acted on by
Petr,
Your subject header is misleading: FDs don't make sense without MPTCs.
As you acknowledge at the end, what you're ultimately asking is: to FD or
not to FD.
Note also, the contemporary debate has shifted to TFs (type families) vs
FDs.
-- Kim-Ee
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Petr P
Hey Conal,
I have something (another circuits formulation) that's almost an arrow
but doesn't support arr.
Have you seen Adam Megacz's generalized arrows?
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~megacz/garrows/
-- Kim-Ee
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
If you
Hi Kim-Ee,
you're right, it's a bit misleading.
I thought about TFs too, personally I mostly prefer them over FDs, but I'd
like the library available for as many compilers as possible. 'semigroups'
is just Haskell 98 and I'd like to keep the requirements similarly low.
Best regards,
Petr
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a synonym of the type?
The idea would be something like this...
code:
type SpaceShip =
* Petr P petr@gmail.com [2012-12-21 13:38:21+0100]
Dear Haskellers,
I'm working on a small library for representing semigroup (or monoid)
actions on a set http://hackage.haskell.org/package/semigroups-actions.
The MultiParamTypeClasses extension seems to be best suited for the task,
as
On 22 December 2012 00:36, Christopher Howard
christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a
Hi Christopher,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:36:04AM -0900, Christopher Howard wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 04:36 -0900, Christopher Howard wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a synonym of the type?
Hi,
Christopher Howard wrote:
instance Category ...
The Category class is rather restricted:
Restriction 1:
You cannot choose what the objects of the category are. Instead, the
objects are always all Haskell types. You cannot choose anything at
all about the objects.
Restriction 2:
You
Sometimes I'll need something like:
if value == Foo then Bar else value
Or some syntactic variation thereof:
case value of { Foo - Bar; _ - value }
Is there a better/shorter way to do it? I'm surprised that it's more
complicated to substitute a value on its own than e.g. in a list, using
Hi guys,
after yet another episode of trying to figure out why library code
doesn't make any sense when reading the related paper, I decided to
start a small wiki just for the purpose of describing differences
between what's in the paper and what's in the code.
The first article can be found at:
It would definitely be nice to be able to work with a partial Category
class, where for example the objects could be constrained to belong to a
class. One could then restrict a Category to a type level representation
of the natural numbers or any other desired set. Kind polymorphism should
make
Thanks, this had me pretty confused too. STM.check itself also differs from
in earlier versions of the library where it returned () or undefined.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM, cheater cheater cheate...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi guys,
after yet another episode of trying to figure out why library
Wow. Learning that there's anyone out there who finds this useful is
one thing.. getting that after 3 minutes is another level of
satisfying :)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Patrick Mylund Nielsen
hask...@patrickmylund.com wrote:
Thanks, this had me pretty confused too. STM.check itself also
L.S.,
I am having troubles with DLLs; my application (Haskell, C and C++) gives
several messages about DLLs not being found. I added these one by one to
the current directory. At a certain point there are just error messages
about null pointers and Segmentation fault/access violation in
Thanks, Kim-Ee. Adam M's garrows look very useful for what I'm doing. --
Conal
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
Hey Conal,
I have something (another circuits formulation) that's almost an arrow
but doesn't support arr.
Have you seen Adam Megacz's
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com wrote:
It would definitely be nice to be able to work with a partial Category
class, where for example the objects could be constrained to belong to a
class. One could then restrict a Category to a type level representation
of the natural
On 12/21/2012 04:52 AM, Daniel Trstenjak wrote:
Why having a Socket3 in the first place, what's the point of it?
The idea was to have some generic structures (Sockets) which were
already instanced into the Monoids-within-Monoids abstraction, yet could
still be made concrete into anything
On 12/21/12 3:27 AM, Oleksandr Manzyuk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how associativity fails, if we mod out alpha-equivalence. Can
you give an example? (If it involves the value undefined, I'll have
something concrete to add
On 12/20/12 7:07 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
On 12/20/2012 03:59 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
In order to fake this theory in Haskell we can do:
newtype MonoidCategory a i j = MC a
instance Monoid a = Category (MonoidCategory a) where
id = MC mempty
MC f
On 12/21/12 2:35 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
It would definitely be nice to be able to work with a partial Category
class, where for example the objects could be constrained to belong to a
class. One could then restrict a Category to a type level representation
of the natural numbers or any other
This is reminiscent of the Either (exception) monad where Left values, the
exceptions, pass through unaltered, and Right values are transformable,
i.e. acted on by functions.
But I have no idea what you're trying to achieve in the bigger picture.
Help us help you by fleshing out your use case.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:08:43 +0100, Henk-Jan van Tuyl hjgt...@chello.nl
wrote:
1) How can I find out which DLLs my application needs (and which
package/library is to blame for it)
I have found a partial answer: cygcheck from Cygwin can list dependencies
on DLLs recursively, like this:
31 matches
Mail list logo
