Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
let x=(1:x); y=(1:y) in x==y .
I also cannot test this:
let x=(1:x); y=1:1:y in x==y
In these examples, x and y denote the same
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2007, at 10:44 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
let x=(1:x); y=(1:y) in x==y .
I
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_|_ is the denotation of every Haskell expression whose
denotation is _|_.
Mu.
Why take away _|_?
Because, when zenning about
instance (Eq a) = Eq [a] where
[] == [] = True
(x:xs) == (y:ys) = x == y xs == ys
_xs== _ys=
Tim Docker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a control structure that's a variation of a monad and I'm
interested in whether
- it's got a name
- it deserves a name (!)
- anything else similar is used elsewhere
You might have reinvented arrows in some sense:
ChrisK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing (Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else (Just n)
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x@(Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else x
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x =
let
Ben Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
ChrisK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing (Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else (Just n)
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x@(Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else x
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2007 07:49 schrieben Sie:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:19:47 +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 6:05 AM, Andrew Coppin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP
would change my life forever because LISP has something called
macros. I tried to learn it, and
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you help me find it ?
Watch out for those garbage collectors, they always carry the stuff
away as soon as you turn your back on it.
You can find them easily by spotting stop-and-go traffic on any street.
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is
a bastard child...
2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The
two seem fundamentally incompatible:
By writing an object that takes
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears as if lambda calculus is defined by lambda calculus.
Yes. id (lambda calculus) = lambda calculus. You might try to point
back to yourself when being asked who you are to see the advantage of
this technique.
--
(c) this sig last receiving
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:01:51 +0200, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears as if lambda calculus is defined by lambda calculus.
Yes. id (lambda calculus) = lambda calculus. You might try
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... So you're claiming that humans have powers of
deduction beyond what computers possess? ;-)
They would be programming us if otherwise, wouldn't they?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
only because it's pleasant for people
to believe in their free will, creativeness, smartness and don't
believe in computers' ones.
Let's see...
Hey, pipeline, there's an jnz eax! we can either jump to the address or
continue, what do you think?
I
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 8:40:05 PM, you wrote:
Interesting... So you're claiming that humans have powers of
deduction beyond what computers possess? ;-)
They would be programming us if otherwise, wouldn't they?
oh, well.
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Tim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 9:42:48 PM, you wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
ok, please compute 2^2^30 before continuing discussion. it seems that
you just use i'm too
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 9:22:40 PM, you wrote:
I think we should jump, eax is zero and I don't want to get
redesigned.
It's all about natural selection, it seems. Heretics get burned in
both worlds.
for me, natural
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 10:16:39 PM, you wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
ok, please compute 2^2^30 before continuing discussion. it seems
that you just use
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
computers don't make mistakes, don't sleep, don't have their own
goals that differ from goals of their society.
Of course not. It would be a different society if their goals would
differ.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
It's always interesting to compare computers and humans, especially
computer scientist seem to do that :)
Hm. More importantly, only humans try to write
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, pray, what problem does the nature wants to solve that it
thinks in the way of all history until now?
making the Superhero who will kill'em all. and it's already very close
Damn, I do continue making the mistake assuming that you got all that
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 11:47:50 PM, you wrote:
It's always interesting to compare computers and humans, especially
computer scientist seem to do that :)
Hm. More importantly, only humans try to write a general Eq and Ord
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please agree to disagree?
I fear Bulat decided to a long time ago. I agree to shut up.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring,
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding this the universe is a turing machine: until a couple of
years ago, I also was someone that believed that (A) the universe
(and life) could be simulated by a computer,
Yesss. Nice. A bit of Escher here:
Imagine an instance of eval
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:00:05 +0200, Daniel Fischer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 18:16 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
A simple question:
Can you write the value of x to a file where x = (1:x) ?
Not in finite time and
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
module Module where
a= let x=1:x in x
main = do something to write a (a notation for a) to file
The function must work if one change a to let x=2:x in x, let
x=1:2:3:x and variations on the same theme.
import GHC?
you can even load it directly
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about
a :: Something
a = let x = x in x
:t a
would give (a - [a]), not Something, or am I mistaken?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It give Something.
You're right, I'm thinking too lispy. The point is that it doesn't have
to be passed an x to be infinite, and that a by itself is fully
polymorphic.
It seems like you're trying to solve the halting problem. Slurping any
infinite data
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is infinite in let x = x in x ?
^ ||
|___/|
\/
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is infinite in let x = x in x ?
^ ||
|___/|
\/
a = let x = x in x
is actually only quite verbose
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:59:28 +0200, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is infinite in let x = x in x
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on what you think is nicer.
For me it looks shorter than undefined and it don't rely on the
library.
Well, for me undefined doesn't throw undeterministic behaviour at me
(throwing a stack overflow sooner or later or not, depending on
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is more strange is that a = a + 1 and a = 1 + a are somehow
distinct. The second give a stack overflow almost instanly, but the
first don't.
That's because what the runtime does looks in the second case like
a = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + a ...
and
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let + force
the two chunks the different way round.
And that is probably also the reason why [1..] == [1..] is _|_.
Is Something that can be, in any evaluation strategy, be bottom, is
bottom
Jake McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. It might be the case that the _contents_ of the data
structure are lazy, in which case I would say the relevant
constructor parameters should be made strict. As long as the
structural parts are still lazy it should be okay.
And there's
L.Guo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should I do then ?
Use fromIntegral.
In general, conversion functions are conventionally named fromXXX, and
not toXXX, to emphasise functionality somewhat when using them.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Dec 2007, at 10:43 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let +
force the two chunks the different way round.
And that is probably also the reason
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Right click - Color Label - Red.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another question regarding the backend: a cool feature of the
Microsoft Visual C++ (MVC) compiler is its ability to perform LTCG
(link-time-code-generation), performing whole program optimization.
It something like this possible with Haskell / (or
...is a paper about automatic specialisation of functions by unboxing
arguments, one could say. I'm only on page 6, but already survived the
first formalisms, which is bound to mean that the rest of the paper is
likewise accessible, as hinted on at ltu.
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/wrapper.pdf
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I'm trying to grok that
[] = id
++ = .
in the context of Hughes lists.
I guess it would stop to slip away if I knew what : corresponds to.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information
Brent Yorgey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, (:) has type a - [a] - [a], so a function corresponding to
(:) for Hughes lists should have type
foo :: a - H a - H a
[...]
I think the key sentence from the paper is this: by
representing a list xs as the function (xs ++) that appends this
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent Yorgey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, (:) has type a - [a] - [a], so a function corresponding to
(:) for Hughes lists should have type
foo :: a - H a - H a
[...]
I think the key sentence from the paper is this: by
representing
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(define (cons x y)
(lambda (m) (m x y)))
(define (car z)
(z (lambda (p q) p)))
(define (cdr z)
(z (lambda (p q) q)))
, which, just for completeness, can be of course also be done in
Haskell:
cons :: a - b - (a - b - c) - c
cons x y m
Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I figure it's (constant vs. linear) vs. (linear vs. quadratic), for
more involved examples.
I can't see it. If I consider (x++y) but I do not evaluate any
element of (x++y) or only the first element, then this will need
constant time. If I
apfelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O((x ++ y) ++ z) ~ O(length x + length y) + O(length x)
+ O(x) + O(y) + O(z)
I would say that it's ~ O(length x) + O(length $ x ++ y) + O(2 * list
mangling)
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Jan 2008, at 2:00 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:
You may be right...but learning is not an atomic thingwherever I
start I will get strange things happening.
The best place to start learning Haskell is with the simplest type
features, not the
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. I have a situation where I have a thread generating some data and
putting it into a mutable array, and another thread trying to read
that data. Is there a way I can make the reader thread block if it
tries to read a cell that hasn't been computed
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because I don't know:
what bugs would be possible in a language having only the instruction
return ()
(';' for imperative programmers)?
/me waves meaningful with his hand.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2008 15:18 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Just because I don't know:
what bugs would be possible in a language having only the
instruction return ()
Bug #1: You cannot write any nontrivial programs. ;-)
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Jan 2008, at 2:13 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Jan 2008, at 2:00 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:
You may be right...but learning is not an atomic
thingwherever I start I will get strange things
ChrisK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how the brain works appears to be though electro- and bio-
chemistry, which are best modeled/described right now by quantum
mechanics.
Erm...
There is this story about some military (US afair) training a neural
net to detect tanks in images, I can't find the
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:21 +, Paul Johnson wrote:
Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
Yes. It's simply impossible. The Stack data type can't be turned
into a monad.
Why not? Surely this is just a variation on the theme of a state
monad?
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Albert Y. C. Lai writes:
Achim Schneider wrote:
There is this story about some military (US afair) training a
neural net to detect tanks in images
...
50% accuracy.
I have some similar stories to tell
A. ... students assumed
sin(x+y) = sin(x
Ben Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer Janssen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:30:53AM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
1. Is there some way to assign a priority to Haskell threads?
(The behaviour I'd like is that high priority threads always run
first, and low priority threads
Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jules:
Achim Schneider wrote:
things like
data State = State
{ winSize :: IORef Size
, t :: IORef Int
, fps :: IORef Float
, showFPS :: IORef Bool
, showHelp :: IORef Bool
, grabMouse
Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:10:59PM +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
That said, I think it's not very Haskell-like to do something
elegantly in 1000 lines when you can do it in 100 lines and still
have it look nicer than C.
I would use IORef State
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let y f = f $ y f
Prelude :t y
y :: (b - b) - b
Just out of curiosity: Where the heck does 'a' hide?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised
Fernando Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is currying in Haskell the same thing as Partial Evaluation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_evaluation)? Am I getting
partial evaluation for free just by using Haskell?
No, currying is this:
Prelude let f x y = 1 + x * ( y - 3 )
Brad Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:22 -0500, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let y f = f $ y f
Prelude :t y
y :: (b - b) - b
Just out of curiosity: Where the heck does 'a' hide?
Beg pardon
Alfonso Acosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 1:07 AM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Beg pardon? Are you referring to the type of y being described
with 'b' instead of 'a'?
Yes.
(a - a) - a and (b - b) - b are equivalent.
For some reason
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:51 +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
Fernando Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is currying in Haskell the same thing as Partial Evaluation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_evaluation)? Am I getting
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 03:37 +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:51 +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
Fernando Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is currying
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we stop using confusing, misleading or outright wrong definitions
and analogies?
No, we can't, ever, that's plain impossible. And will never stop to use
enlightening, inspiring or vastly approximate or aggregate definitions
and analogies, and I won't
Yu-Teh Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got question about why haskell insist to be a purely FL. I mean is
there any feature which is only support by pure?
I mean maybe the program is much easier to prove? Or maybe we can
cache some value for laziness.
Could anyone give me some more
Fernando Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing a very simple address book. I defined the follwoing types
for Contact and AddressBook:
type Name= String
type PhoneNumber= Integer
data Contact = Contact {name :: Name, phone:: PhoneNumber} deriving
Show
-- The
Fernando Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing a very simple address book. I defined the follwoing types
for Contact and AddressBook:
type Name= String
type PhoneNumber= Integer
data Contact = Contact {name :: Name, phone:: PhoneNumber} deriving
Show
-- The
Attila Babo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using ghci your code is fine under Linux, but fails on Windows, even
with a daily snapshot from today. It's OK when compiling with ghc on
both platforms.
I think it is time for peter to become acquainted with the readline
package and write a custom repl.
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 10:10 AM, Dominic Steinitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk writes:
The difficulty is in deciding what the api should be. Does it
give you a real bitstream or only a byte aligned one? If I ask
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ something that every C programmer dreams of ]
I'm not going to answer, I'd be just vapour-waring around.
But, yes, any-alignment any-granularity reads can be done in O(1), with
1 ranging from case to case from one instruction to a few shifts and
's, plus
Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a reduction anyway?
() - o - . -
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or
Nick Rolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://morpheus.cs.ucdavis.edu/papers/sweeny.pdf
He refers to Haskell and its strengths (and some of its weaknesses)
quite a bit.
For those who don't know him, Tim Sweeney is the main programmer
behind Epic Games's popular Unreal Engine. When he talks,
Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those who don't know him, Tim Sweeney is the main programmer
behind Epic Games's popular Unreal Engine. When he talks, many
game developers will listen.
We will dream, most likely.
Perhaps more importantly, anything he does
will
Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make less bugs with that language? Fucking learn to write C++!
Excuse me?
A probable exclamation of a pointy-haired boss, that is. What I wanted
to say is that if you tell such a guy that you'll make less bugs in
language X, he would assume
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The surest thing to make people switch is to make them not aware of
it, i.e. make things look exactly like in C, with incremental updates
of the same variable and everything, while still retaining a purely
functional semantic under the hood.
I guess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niko Korhonen writes:
...
Although it could be argued that laziness is the cause of some very
obscure bugs... g
Niko
Example, PLEASE.
[1..] == [1..]
, for assumed operational semantics of ones own axiomatic semantics.
Bugs are only a misunderstanding
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem is when viewing plain darcs repositories (like mine on
darcs.johantibell.com which I recently fixed with the above mime
type hack.)
Please complain to your browser('s authors): most browsers only
provide *one* way to view a given
Daniel Yokomizo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 3:36 PM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niko Korhonen writes:
...
Although it could be argued that laziness is the cause of some
very obscure bugs... g
Niko
Example, PLEASE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider answers my question to somebody else (Niko Korhonen):
Although it could be argued that laziness is the cause of some
very obscure bugs... g
Niko
Example, PLEASE.
[1..] == [1..]
Whatever you may say more, this is neither
Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Concurrency
does seem pretty disruptive.
Yes, the thought of using par on a dual quad-core makes me salivate.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised
Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In return, we can improve the parallelism support further.
Now don't make me think of using par on a beowolf cluster of ps3's.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider:
jerzy.karczmarczuk asks what's wrong with:
[1..] == [1..]
Whatever you may say more, this is neither obscure nor a bug. I
still wait for a relevant example. But I don't insist too much...
It's not an example of a bug
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
The special case of 1/0 is less clear, though. One might
decide that it should be an error rather than NaN, as some
languages have.
It is neither,
1/0 = Infinity
-1/0 = -Infinity
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe I'm just lucky, but if we are still talking about the games
industry I don't think this fits my experience of bosses. Games
compete very much on performance, and we basically rewrite almost
all of our
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:24:34PM +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
The special case of 1/0 is less clear, though. One might
decide that it should
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:41:53PM +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:24:34PM +0100, Achim Schneider wrote:
John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1/0 = Infinity
-1/0 = -Infinity
Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, apfelmus wrote:
So, difference lists are no eierlegende wollmilchsau either.
LEO's forum suggests 'swiss army knife' as translation. :-)
But you really need one with 5 differently-sized blades plus three
spezialized
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But you really need one with 5 differently-sized blades plus three
spezialized carving blades, an USB stick, microscope, 13 kinds of
torx, imbus etc drivers each, a tv set (analogue/digital
Tillmann Rendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
[1..] == [1..]
[some discussion about the nontermination of this expression]
The essence of laziness is to do the least work necessary to cause
the desired effect, which is to see that the set of natural numbers
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 Jan 2008, at 7:55 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Daniel Yokomizo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 3:36 PM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niko Korhonen writes:
...
Although it could be argued
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You need to use the / operator, if you want to do floating-point
division.
Yes, exactly, integers don't have +-0 and +-infinity... only
(obviously) a kind of nan.
No, failure (exception, bottom
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let x=1e-300/1e300
Prelude x
0.0
Prelude x/x
NaN
The true answer here is that x/x == 1.0 (not 0 or +Infinity), but
there's no way for the computer to know this, so it's NaN.
Wl.. math philosophy, Ok.
You can't divide
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:11:52 +0200, Lennart Augustsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people seem to think that == is an equality predicate.
This is a big source of confusion for them; until they realize that
== is just another function returning
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Jan 2008, at 5:13 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of mathematics? I don't know of any mathematics where
algebraic simplifications are employed without proof of the
underlying equations (in some
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Jan 2008, at 10:12 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prelude let x=1e-300/1e300
Prelude x
0.0
Prelude x/x
NaN
The true answer here is that x/x == 1.0 (not 0 or +Infinity), but
there's no way
Kalman Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
whereas lim( 0 ) * lim( inf ) is anything you want
Indeed I suppose that »lim inf«, which is a notation I'm not familiar
with, is not actually defined to mean anything?
It's an ad-hoc expression of as the slices approach zero
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kalman Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
whereas lim( 0 ) * lim( inf ) is anything you want
Indeed I suppose that »lim inf«, which is a notation I'm not
familiar with, is not actually defined to mean anything?
It's
Kalman Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
Actually, lim( 0 ) * lim( inf ) isn't anything but equals one, and
the anything is defined to one (or, rather, is _one_ anything) to be
able to use the abstraction. It's a bit like the difference between
eight pens and a box
Rafael Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perfectSquares :: [Integer]
perfectSquares = zipWith (*) [1..] [1..]
isPerfectSquare :: Integer - Bool
isPerfectSquare x = (head $ dropWhile (x) perfectSquares) == x
what about
module Main where
isPerfectSquare :: Integer - Bool
isPerfectSquare n =
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rafael Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perfectSquares :: [Integer]
perfectSquares = zipWith (*) [1..] [1..]
isPerfectSquare :: Integer - Bool
isPerfectSquare x = (head $ dropWhile (x) perfectSquares) == x
what about
module Main where
1 - 100 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
