On 2011-10-24 00:18:45 -0700, Heinrich Apfelmus said:
Actually, polymorphism is not implicit in System F,
Of course; take a look at the explicit type-application {|t|} in the
second link I posted.
On 2011-10-24 00:18:45 -0700, Heinrich Apfelmus said:
With this in mind, it's clear that
Hrm, it seems that I hit send instead of save draft when shutting
down my computer last night.
On 2011-10-22 22:48:55 -0700, Adam Megacz said:
I've written up a short example of the problems that happen here:
Here is the link which was missing from that posting:
http://www.megacz.com
On 2011-10-23 17:02:47 -0700, Brandon Moore said:
It sounds like the entire point of this is syntax representation?
Not really.. the entire point of this is parametricity. :)
There are a lot of examples involving syntax and binding because ruling
out exotic terms is one of the things
The title might be a bit more provocative than necessary.
I'm starting to suspect that there are very useful aspects of the
parametricity of System F(C) which can't be taken advantage of by
Haskell in its current state. To put it briefly, case-matching on a
value of type (forall n . T n)
A few people have mentioned that the flattening process is easier to
understand from example diagrams. Now it's possible to generate those
diagrams automatically:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~megacz/garrows/flattening.examples/
- a
___
and multiplicative. Instead of this:
Adam Megacz meg...@cs.berkeley.edu writes:
If you look at the corresponding multi-level language, the type of
synch's input (pair-of-streams) is additive conjunction [2] and its
output type (stream-of-pairs) is multiplicative conjunction
I should have written: the type
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
I wonder if I need something like your use of 'representation' types, i.e.
to restrict what sort of elements can be stored in a collection.
...
I'll admit to some reluctance, however, to clutter up several typeclasses
with four more types. What are
Responding to a very stale thread here...
Scott Turner 2hask...@pkturner.org writes:
And indeed, a channel carrying a sum type corresponds much more
closely to a pair of channels than does a channel carrying pairs.
I certainly agree with the slogan a stream of pairs is not the same as
a pair
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
I've a preliminary model, using Adam Megacz's Generalized Arrows, of
the form:
Hey, neat. Actually, this sounds more like the generalized arrow
version of arrowized FRP's switch and par (Section 2.6 of [1]). I'd
been meaning to figure out the GArrow
You should check out Brian Alliet's LambdaVM:
http://www.cs.rit.edu/~bja8464/lambdavm/
- a
Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Folks,
Where can I find Lambada these days and would it be of any use to me
in trying to connect to a Weblogic server?
To make the long story short, my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark T.B. Carroll) writes:
Is it easy to create Haskell stubs (in the IO monad, presumably) for
standard Java libraries so that your compiled-to-JVM Haskell code can
easily use the usual Java APIs like Swing? One source of vexation for us
is mapping between Java types and
Has anybody been able to get hs-plugins to work with ghc6.6?
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-hs-plugins-runtime-error-with-GHC-6.6%3A-index-out-of-range-p7163027.html
- a
--
PGP/GPG: 5C9F F366 C9CF 2145 E770 B1B8 EFB1 462D A146 C380
___
Haskell-Cafe
Chung-chieh Shan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Megacz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Is there any work on automatic translation of code in some tiny
imperative language into Haskell code that uses the ST and/or IO
monads (or perhaps
Is there any work on automatic translation of code in some tiny
imperative language into Haskell code that uses the ST and/or IO
monads (or perhaps even pure functional code)?
For example, the user writes something vaguely like
array = newArray (1,100) 1
for x=2 to 99
array[x] :=
14 matches
Mail list logo
