Thanks! That was exactly the sort of response I was looking for.
This explains why you need to double up for your current definitions. To
choose between two booleans (which will in turn allow you to choose between
'a's), you need a CB (CB a). You can eliminate the asymmetric type, though,
like
Hello,
A professor of mine was recently playing around during a lecture with Church
booleans (I.e., true = \x y - x; false = \x y - y) in Scala and OCaml. I
missed what he did, so I reworked it in Haskell and got this:
type CB a = a - a - a
ct :: CB aC
ct x y = x
cf :: CB a
cf x y = y
cand ::
I and certainly some of my professors would be extremely interested in a
Chicago HUG. Facebook sounds like a good idea, but I tend not to
actually check facebook groups. They just aren't quite intrusive enough. :)
Unfortunately (actually, quite fortunately), I'm in Budapest for the
semester,
Hey,
Besides fgl, are there any graph libraries in Haskell that are still
maintained? Are there other papers (or books) besides Erwig's that I
could use to understand how graph algorithms have been implemented in
functional languages?
Has anything even been published on the topic since
... There have been 12 replies to this question, all of which say the
same thing. I'm glad we're so happy to help, but does
Just 3 = return . (+1)
Need to be explained by 12 different people?
fmap (trying to++) $ Just help -- :D
Cory
Why doesn't this work?
Michael
[mich...@localhost ~]$
Andrew Coppin wrote:
I can't await the next Haskell standard, where at last all those
extensions are builtin.
This frightens me.
The example he had had the uses keyword, so I assume it's built in in
the same way Perl pragma are built in. So you can happily ignore code
when you see uses at
rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Ross Paterson wrote:
Anyone can check out the darcs repos for the libraries, and post
suggested improvements to the documentation to librar...@haskell.org
(though you have to subscribe). It doesn't even have to be a patch.
Sure, it could be
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Cory Knapp wrote:
As far as I know, one of the draws of Haskell is the inherent
mathematical nature of it.
It's also simultaneously one of the biggest things that puts people off.
Perhaps as we can curb this with sufficient documentation, as others
have suggested
Dan Piponi wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
How about associativity means that how you pair up the operations
does not affect the result?
I think a better way is this: If you have an element of a monoid, a,
there are two ways to combine
of a rant, but I spend enough time
trying to convince people that math isn't horrid and disgusting...
Cory Knapp
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
10 matches
Mail list logo
