On 12/25/2012 09:59 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
Say I have things like:
data LongDec = LongDef a b c ... x y z
values = [ 'a', 'b', 'c', ... 'x', 'y', 'z' ]
Now I want them to be LongDef 'a' 'b' 'c' ... 'x' 'y' 'z'.
In form, this is something like folding. But since the type changes, so
On 12/30/2012 10:57 PM, Eli Frey wrote:
sorry, forgot to reply-all
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Eli Frey* eli.lee.f...@gmail.com mailto:eli.lee.f...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Object Oriented programming for Functional
Programmers
On 01/03/2013 10:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Anyway, Type checking is essentially an application of set theory : (I
did no search in te literature for this, It is just my perception).
Not exactly. Type theory is not an application of set theory, it is an
alternative to set theory.
When
On 01/02/2013 11:19 PM, MigMit wrote:
On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:09 AM, Gershom Bazerman gersh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object, and
this call
On 04/10/2013 04:45 AM, o...@okmij.org wrote:
...
And yet there exists a context that distinguishes x == y from y ==x.
That is, there exists
bad_ctx :: ((Bool,Bool) - Bool) - Bool
such that
*R bad_ctx $ \(x,y) - x == y
True
*R bad_ctx $ \(x,y) - y == x
On 04/12/2013 10:24 AM, o...@okmij.org wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
I am not sure that the two statements are equivalent. Above you say that
the context distinguishes x == y from y == x and below you say that it
distinguishes them in one possible run.
I guess this is a terminological problem
On 05/02/2013 10:42 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
At Thu, 02 May 2013 20:47:07 +0100,
Ian Price wrote:
I know this isn't perhaps the best forum for this, but maybe you can
give me some pointers.
Earlier today I was thinking about De Bruijn Indices, and they have the
property that two lambda
On 05/02/2013 11:33 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
At Thu, 02 May 2013 23:16:45 +0200,
Timon Gehr wrote:
Yes, they can. Take ‘f = λ x : ℕ → x + x’ and ‘g = λ x : ℕ → 2 * x’.
Those are not lambda terms.
How are they not lambda terms?
I guess if + and * are interpreted as syntax sugar
On 05/02/2013 11:37 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Timon Gehr's message of Thu May 02 14:16:45 -0700 2013:
Those are not lambda terms.
Furthermore, if those terms are rewritten to operate on church numerals,
they have the same unique normal form, namely λλλ 3 2 (3 2 1).
The trick is
On 07/11/2013 07:33 PM, Vlatko Basic wrote:
Hello Cafe,
I have
data CmpFunction a = CF (a - a - Bool)
that contains comparing functions, like ==, , ..., and I'm trying to
declare the Show instance for it like this
instance Show (CmpFunction a) where
show (CF (==)) = ==
On 07/11/2013 08:37 AM, AntC wrote:
oleg at okmij.org writes:
...
In Haskell I'll have to uniquely number the s's:
let (x,s1) = foo 1 [] in
let (y,s2) = bar x s1 in
let (z,s3) = baz x y s2 in ...
and re-number them if I insert a new statement.
I once wrote about
On 07/20/2013 12:23 AM, Matt Ford wrote:
Hi All,
I thought I'd have a go at destructing
[1,2] = \n - [3,4] = \m - return (n,m)
which results in [(1,3)(1,4),(2,3),(2,4)]
I started by putting brackets in
([1,2] = \n - [3,4]) = \m - return (n,m)
...
This is not the same expression any more.
On 07/20/2013 12:58 AM, Matt Ford wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the help.
I thought = was left associative? It seems to be in the examples from
Learn You A Haskell.
...
Yes, = is left-associative. The associativity of = is not relevant
for your example because no two = operations actually occur
On 08/08/2013 01:19 AM, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Bardur Arantsson comments the comment of Joe Quinn:
On 8/7/2013 11:00 AM, David Thomas wrote:
twice :: IO () - IO ()
twice x = x x
I would call that evaluating x twice (incidentally creating two
separate evaluations of one pure action
On 09/10/2013 09:30 AM, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
Impressed by the productivity of my Ruby-writing friends, I have
recently come across Cucumber: http://cukes.info
It is a great tool for specifying tests and programs in natural
language, and especially easy to learn for beginners.
I propose
On 09/15/2013 09:38 AM, Evan Laforge wrote:
...
It seems to me like I should be able to replace a typeclass with
arbitrary methods with just two, to reify the type and back. This
seems to work when the typeclass dispatches on an argument, but not on
a return value. E.g.:
...
Say m_argument
16 matches
Mail list logo
