Not being very savvy in building things I got stuck when trying to build
xmonad. It needs X11 1.2.2, so I tried to build that. Configuration step
went fine (I believe), but buiding failed:
runhaskell Setup.hs build
Preprocessing library X11-1.2.2...
I have problems building X11. I just installed ghc 6.8 but I got the same
behaviour when asking it to use the old compiler.
Jens
runghc Setup.hs configure
Configuring X11-1.3.0.2007...
checking for gcc... gcc
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking whether the C
I was wondering if someone could give me some references to when and why the
choice was made to default integral numerical literals to Integer rather
than to Int in Haskell. Also, if you are aware of similar discussions in
other languages.
I'd like to use this information to make an analogous
On 1 April 2010 10:53, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.comwrote:
Jens Blanck jens.bla...@gmail.com writes:
I was wondering if someone could give me some references to when and why
the
choice was made to default integral numerical literals to Integer rather
than to Int
Thanks for your replies.
In particular to Jon for the reference to the Haskell 98 standard and the
comment about language design.
If anyone has further references to Haskell 98 or Erlang, I'm still
interested.
Regarding cost, I do see the difference in factors (Integer - Int, and
computable
The point about Eratosthenes's sieve is that it does not specify
algorithmically how to find the next number to be crossed. It does not
even define how to store (crossed) numbers, it stores them on paper.
But , I believe that Eratosthenes's sieve does specify how to store numbers
and how to
{-# LANGUAGE MagicHash #-}
import GHC.Exts
import Data.Bits
-- experiment with using a LUT here (hint: FFI + static arrays in C)
ilog2i0, ilog2i1, ilog2i2, ilog2i3, ilog2i4 :: Int - Int - Int
ilog2i0 k x | x .. 0x /= 0 = ilog2i1 (k + 16) (x `shiftR` 16)
| otherwise
How would I introduce number classes that are extended with plus and
minus infinity? I'd like to have polymorphism over these new classes,
something like a signature
f :: (Real a, Extended a b) = b - b
which clearly is not part of the current syntax, but I hope you get
the picture. What are the
How would I introduce number classes that are extended with plus and
minus infinity? I'd like to have polymorphism over these new classes,
something like a signature
f :: (Real a, Extended a b) = b - b
which clearly is not part of the current syntax, but I hope you get
the picture.
Hi,
I found myself writing the following
leastFixedPoint :: (Eq a) = (a - a) - a - a
leastFixedPoint f x = fst . head . dropWhile (uncurry (/=)) $ zip l (tail l)
where l = iterate f x
and was a bit surprised that I couldn't get any matches on hoogle for the
type above. The closest one is
On Friday 20 March 2009 5:23:37 am Ryan Ingram wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
However, to answer Luke's wonder, I don't think fixAbove always finds
fixed points, even when its preconditions are met. Consider:
f [] = []
f (x:xs)
I don't think the original question really is about commutativity, but
rather the choice of Monoid instance.
Not being especially mathematically inclined, every once and a while I
get a little panicked when I notice that, e.g. Data.Map mappend is a
plain left-biased union, and doesn't actually
12 matches
Mail list logo
