What about (Compose Form IO) Blog type? Form is Applicative, IO — the same,
their composition should be Applicative as well (one good thing about
Applicatives — they really compose). Take a look at Control.Compose module.
Отправлено с iPad
01 окт. 2013 г., в 10:58, Michael Snoyman
The classical reference is, I think, the paper “Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk
vs. ... An Experiment in Software Prototyping Productivity”
On Sep 23, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for articles that provide some technical support for why Haskell
Confirm the issue. I have Firefox on Mac as well, and it does show for me, but
says the same thing as Tommy's Safari
On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Tommy Thorn tt1...@yahoo.com wrote:
This is interesting and I wish them luck, but it seems surprising
that the below link doesn't have as much as a
OK, now video on
http://www.i-newswire.com/fp-complete-launches-fp-haskell/237230 works. Seems
like a youtube glitch
On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:37 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Confirm the issue. I have Firefox on Mac as well, and it does show for me,
but says the same thing as Tommy's
On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
31.07.2013, 05:03, Michael Xavier mich...@michaelxavier.net:
angel is a daemon
angel is a background process sounds better.
You're killing the joke.
Sorry for offtopic
On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Andreas Abel andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de wrote:
On 20.07.13 9:36 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
However, I'm also not agitating for a non-recursive let, I think that
ship has sailed. Besides, if it were added people would start
wondering about non-recursive where, and it
It really sounds rude, to demand promises from somebody who just gave you a big
present.
Отправлено с iPhone
10.06.2013, в 16:11, Zed Becker zed.bec...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi all,
Haskell, is arguably the best example of a design-by-committee language. The
syntax is clean and most
Doing HTML UI with Happstack was a pleasant experience.
Отправлено с iPhone
21.05.2013, в 12:47, Vlatko Basic vlatko.ba...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi,
I'd like to start using web pages as the UI for apps. I found out for yesod,
snapp and happstack as the candidates.
Would you recommend any
My result: 2000 lines of Right ()
ghc-pkg list aeson says aeson-0.6.1.0
On May 18, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
I am observing a non-deterministic behaviour of aeson's parser.
I'm writing here in addition to filing a bug report [1] to draw
attention to this
You can stop suspecting: in Haskell, equations ARE definitions.
On May 15, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Patrick Browne patrick.bro...@dit.ie wrote:
The relation to theorem proving is the main motivation for my question.
In am trying to understand why some equations are ok and others not.
I suspect
Maybe I understand the problem incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're
overcomplicating things.
With that kind of interface you don't actually need existential types. Or
phantom types. You can just keep Inotify inside the Watch, like this:
import Prelude hiding (init, map)
import
Отправлено с iPad
08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com написал(а):
Can't we just add some features to haddock?
No, we can't. At the very least we should FIX haddock before adding features.
There are a lot of ways
to improve haddock a lot, and no one is doing them, so my
Suppose I compiled some module and kept it's .hi and .o files. Is it possible
to use this module in my program if the source code was deleted for some reason?
Seems like the answer is yes — by creating a fake .hs file (with no real
content) and touch-in .hi and .o files I tricked ghc so that it
Sorry, I think that's not the right list for this question.
Отправлено с iPhone
23.03.2013, в 2:04, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru написал(а):
Suppose I compiled some module and kept it's .hi and .o files. Is it possible
to use this module in my program if the source code was deleted for some
On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
The interesting challenge here is that we should have
Date + Period - Date Date - Period - Date
Period + Date - Date Period - Date - ILLEGAL
Period + Period - DeriodPeriod - Period -
On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:44 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
Prelude :type (+)
(+) :: Num a = a - a - a
The predefined (+) in Haskell requires its arguments and its result
to be precisely the same type.
I think you had better justify the claim that Date+Period - Date and
On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Peter Caspers pcaspers1...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you all for your answers, this helps a lot. To clarify my last point ...
Also again, taking this way I can not provide several constructors taking
inputs of different types, can I ?
Sorry, didn't get what you
On Mar 10, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Peter Caspers pcaspers1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just started playing around a bit with Haskell, so sorry in advance for
very basic (and maybe stupid) questions. Coming from the C++ world one thing
I would like to do is overloading operators. For example I
Have you tried running ghci inside Emacs?
Отправлено с iPhone
21.02.2013, в 13:58, Semyon Kholodnov joker...@gmail.com написал(а):
Imagine we have this simple program:
module Main(main) where
main = do
x - getLine
putStrLn x
Now I want to run it somehow, enter résumé 履歴書
Well, this runtime errors are actually type errors. Regexps are actually a DSL,
which is not embedded in Haskell. But it could be. Strings won't work for that,
but something like that would:
filter (match $ a many anyChar .txt) filenames
and this certainly can be produced by TH like that:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly
...@mired.org:
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru
wrote:
Eiffel, for my opinion, is a best OOP language. Meyer use a
theoretical approach as it is possible in OOP.
Really? Because when I studied it I had a very different impression
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
Well, we can say concepts in place of theory. And I'm comparing Eiffel
with other OOP lang, not with some langs based on a solid math theory (lambda
calcules for FP langs, for example). ok?
I agree that there are
2) prepost conditions and class invariants have defined behaviour in cases
of inheritance, even/especially multiple inheritance. They are combined
non-trivially in subclasses. Without this I don't think you have DbC.
Yes, I forgot about that. Thanks.
Feel free to enlighten me about these
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 compiles, you can't be certain
of the program). Compare this to
Haskell types, for example: an untyped version of Haskell won't be able to
choose between two class instances, so, that would be an entirely different
language.
On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:41 PM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote
Well, functional programmer is a relatively broad term. If you're coming from
academia, so that for you Haskell is some sort of lambda-calculus, spoiled by
practical aspects, then I'd suggest Luca Cardelli's book Theory of Objects.
Also, as Daniel told you already, don't start from C++, it
Sorry for the stupid mistake — when I said Daniel in the previous message,
I've meant Jay.
Отправлено с iPad
30.12.2012, в 23:58, Daniel Díaz Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
Syntax extensibility is usually too powerful, it surely would be abused
extensively, which would make developer's life a nightmare, unless there is
only one developer and whole development takes no more than a couple of months.
On Dec 31, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Dan Burton danburton.em...@gmail.com
Yes, monomorphism. do binding requires your fold'' to be of some monomorphic
type, but runST requires some polymorphism.
If you want, you can use special type like that:
data FoldSTVoid = FoldSTVoid {runFold :: forall a. (Int - ST a ()) - ST a ()}
fold :: Monad m = (Int - m ()) - m ()
fold f =
Tits?
On Nov 21, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Daniel Trstenjak daniel.trsten...@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
Daniel
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Отправлено с iPhone
17.11.2012, в 11:19, damodar kulkarni kdamodar2...@gmail.com написал(а):
In the second case, why the GHC doesn't give something like?
([Char] (a - t), Num a) = t
Because Num is a class of types, while String is a type.
In other words, in the expression 3 a ghc doesn't
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
Отправлено с iPhone
14.11.2012, в 16:03, Serge D. Mechveliani mech...@botik.ru написал(а):
Please,
how to correctly set an explicit type for a local value in the body of
a polymorphic function?
Example (tested under ghc-7.6.1):
data D a = D1 a |
Seems like nobody really understands what is it that you want to accomplish or
what your problem is.
Отправлено с iPhone
21.10.2012, в 20:39, Corentin Dupont corentin.dup...@gmail.com написал(а):
Nobody on this one?
Here is a simplified version:
data Event a where
InputChoice :: a -
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:03 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Seems like nobody really understands what is it that you want to accomplish
or what your problem is.
Отправлено с iPhone
21.10.2012, в 20:39, Corentin Dupont corentin.dup...@gmail.com написал(а):
Nobody on this one
Why do you need ALike x, BLike x etc.? Why not just Like u x?
Отправлено с iPhone
Oct 18, 2012, в 14:36, Dmitry Vyal akam...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hello list!
I've been experimenting with emulating subtyping and heterogeneous
collections in Haskell. I need this to parse a binary
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov the.dead.shall.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/10/2012 20:11, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote:
I couldn't find anything on the interplay between orphan instances and
On Oct 11, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov the.dead.shall.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
You have a bigger problem coming. Some extensions make multiple instances
OK, even in Safe Haskell. For example
):
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Oct 11, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov
the.dead.shall.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
You have a bigger problem coming. Some extensions
Well, it seems that you can't do exactly what you want. So, the simplest way to
do this would be not to make Foo a superclass for Bar:
class Bar a where
foo :: Foo a b = a - b - c
Then you would have to mention Foo everywhere.
If you really need, for some reason, to ensure that every Bar
On Sep 29, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Francesco Mazzoli f...@mazzo.li wrote:
I would expect this to work, maybe with some additional notation (a la
ScopedTypeVariables)
{-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-}
{-#
It shoudn't typecheck.
Suppose you have instances like
instance ReplaceOneOf Foo where
type Item Foo = Baz
element = elementFoo
instance ReplaceOneOf Bar where
type Item Bar = Baz
element = elementBar
Now if you call replaceOneOf manyBazs foo1 foo2, Haskell should consult
element ::
Mind if I join you in praising this?
On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Kristopher Micinski krismicin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Agreed. Great. I still contend that it would be cool to get this to
be a real thing at something like the Haskell workshop, I think
hearing the different perspectives would
Why modify it instead of creating the new one and let the previous tree get
garbage collected?
On Sep 9, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Milan Straka f...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi all,
is there any way to perform a destructive update on a plain ADT?
Imagine I have a simple
data Tree a = Nil | Node a (Tree a)
What if instead of upper (and lower) bounds we just specify our interface
requirements? Like package bull-shit should provide value Foo.Bar.baz ::
forall a. [a] - [a] - [a] or more general. Sure, it won't help dealing with
strictness/lazyness, but it would capture most interface differences.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
We already have a simple versioning scheme for which, despite it being easy
to grasp, we have amply demonstrated that we cannot make it work well,
because it has emergent properties that cause it to not scale well
It really seems to me that the error message you've got explains everything
quite clear.
Отправлено с iPad
31.07.2012, в 22:59, Shayan Najd Javadipour sh.n...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi,
I wonder why the following code doesn't typecheck in GHC 7.4.1:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs,RankNTypes #-}
Works here.
GHC 7.4.2
On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Artyom Kazak artyom.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have accidentally written my version of polyvariadic composition
combinator, `mcomp`. It differs from Oleg’s version (
http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/polyvariadic.html#polyvar-comp ) in
Actually, both examples show that the problem isn't type inference, it's
defaulting mechanism.
Отправлено с iPhone
Jul 17, 2012, в 12:46, o...@okmij.org написал(а):
1. Haskell's type inference is NON-COMPOSITIONAL!
Yes, it is -- and there are many examples of it. Here is an example
Actually, using cast seems to be a perfect solution here. I can't see anything
wrong with it.
Отправлено с iPad
03.07.2012, в 20:33, Corentin Dupont corentin.dup...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi all,
I read somewhere (here:
On 23 Jun 2012, at 21:27, Anton Kholomiov wrote:
At last..
No, it wants me to define an instance for
(StateT s) which is supposed to be defined
be the authors of the library.
Actually I discovered that I have two libraries
called transformers.
transformers-0.2.2.0
Well, it's not do notation, since replacing standard g with standard g =
return gives the same poor performance. I wonder if it has something to do
with error checking.
On 11 Jun 2012, at 13:38, Dmitry Dzhus wrote:
Hello everyone.
I wonder why using do notation with `-` can ruin the
On 7 Jun 2012, at 20:55, Gábor Lehel wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is similar to something I
recently filed as a feature request:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5927
Yes, that seems to be it. Now I know I'm not alone.
In the meantime it's possible to
Hi café, a quick question.
Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
class Something c where
unit :: c () ()
pair :: c x y - c u v - c (x, u) (y, v)
?
I'm using it heavily in my current project, but I don't want to repeat somebody
else's work, and it seems general enough to be
On 8 May 2012, at 21:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Hi café, a quick question.
Is there a somewhat standard class like this:
class Something c where
unit :: c () ()
pair :: c x y - c u v - c (x, u) (y, v
like congruent or
ProductsRespectThisRelation :)
Dan
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
FullBinaryTreeRelation? :P
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Hi café, a quick question.
Is there a somewhat standard
I would argue that there is just one ST monad, which makes the question even
more strange.
On 23 Apr 2012, at 22:32, KC wrote:
Is it only one data structure per ST monad?
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Ehm... why exactly don't domain products form domains?
On 21 Feb 2012, at 19:44, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 2/21/12 2:17 AM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Sebastian Fischerfisc...@nii.ac.jp [2012-02-21 00:28:13+0100]
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Roman Cheplyakar...@ro-che.info wrote:
Is
Isn't that just something like liftA2 mplus?
Отправлено с iPhone
Feb 19, 2012, в 15:50, Jon Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk написал(а):
This is probably a failure of my search fu or some other mental
lacuna, but is there already a definition of this function
somewhere:
\a b -
Different kinds of optimization. I expect you'd have different results even if
you use one type, but different -O flags.
On 18 Feb 2012, at 13:28, Heinrich Hördegen wrote:
Dear all,
I have a question about evaluation with respect to types and currying.
Consider this programm:
import
triggers?
Heinrich
On 18.02.2012 11:10, MigMit wrote:
Different kinds of optimization. I expect you'd have different results even
if you use one type, but different -O flags.
On 18 Feb 2012, at 13:28, Heinrich Hördegen wrote:
Dear all,
I have a question about evaluation
Well, if you want that in production, not for debugging purposes, you should
change the type signature of mergesort so that it uses some monad. Printing
requires IO monad; however, I would advise to collect all intermediate results
using Writer monad, and print them afterwards:
mergesort [] =
Отправлено с iPad
22.01.2012, в 20:25, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com написал(а):
Attempting to shoehorn `undefined` into your reasoning about domain algebras
and models and monads is simply a mistake.
No. Using the complete semantics — which includes bottoms aka undefined — is a
On 21 Jan 2012, at 21:29, Victor S. Miller wrote:
The do notation translates
do {x - a;f} into
a=(\x - f)
However when we're working in the IO monad the semantics we want requires
that the lambda expression be strict in its argument. So is this a special
case for IO? If I wanted
On 18 Jan 2012, at 21:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music,
and street food:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Oregon (wikipedia is blacked out today)
Maybe it is only a
Type classes are inherently open. The compiler uses only the facts that there
ARE some instances of the classes it needs, but it doesn't attempt to use
information that some types AREN'T instances of certain classes. So, it can't
use information that T0 isn't an instance of C1. And that's right
On 24 Dec 2011, at 11:31, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
So, on IRC in #haskell, from the same person, speaking on the same topic in
the same context, in the same interval of 3 minutes (the first two sentences
in the same minute):
1. a function f is strict if f ⊥ = ⊥
2. ⊥ represents any
Отправлено с iPad
24.12.2011, в 18:50, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com написал(а):
In the same way, denotational semantics adds features which do not apply to a
theory of finite computation.
And why exactly should we limit ourselves to some theory you happen to like?
The
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
calculations in a list
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
calculations in a list
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we wouldn't be restricted by the
language.
I second
On 22 Dec 2011, at 06:25, Alexander Solla wrote:
Denotational semantics is unrealistic.
And so are imaginary numbers. But they are damn useful for electrical circuits
calculations, so who cares?
The /defining/ feature of a bottom is that it doesn't have an interpretation.
What do you mean
Отправлено с iPhone
Dec 20, 2011, в 7:10, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com написал(а):
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'. It's
not a value, and that is what defines it.
It's definitely a value.
___
Отправлено с iPhone
Dec 20, 2011, в 14:40, Jesse Schalken jesseschal...@gmail.com написал(а):
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Lippmeier
On 21 Dec 2011, at 08:24, Alexander Solla wrote:
I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete parts
collapsed into something we call bottom.
I don't see the reason to limit ourselves to that. Of course, in total
languages like Agda there is no need for (_|_). But
No
On 23 Nov 2011, at 23:11, heathmatlock wrote:
Question: Do you want a mascot?
Answers:
Yes
No
--
This is an attempt to figure out if this idea is going anywhere.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
The fact that nobody bothered to write one down doesn't mean there isn't one.
Отправлено с iPhone
Nov 16, 2011, в 13:07, Andrew Butterfield andrew.butterfi...@cs.tcd.ie
написал(а):
On 16 Nov 2011, at 08:46, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
But I think, despite the well-founded denotational
Maybe it's just me, but I've thought that being non-strict just means that it's
possible for a function to produce some value even if it's argument doesn't; in
other words, that it's possible to have f (_|_) ≠ (_|_). If there was no such
thing as (_|_), what would non-strictness mean?
On 16
either be
returning a Maybe or Either String, or expressing the violated precondition
in the type system so it can be tested at compile time. What am I missing?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 November 2011 11:05, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru
You've declared from as forall b. Test - [b], but you're trying to implement
it as Test - H.
On 17 Nov 2011, at 07:48, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
Hi,
Consider I have declarations like this:
class (ClassA a) = ClassC a where
from :: (ClassB b) = a - [b]
to :: (ClassB c) = a - [c]
, at 08:54, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
I think this is where I did not understand from the very beginning.
If the the declaration was correct, then why cannot b be H?
Referring to Data.List.genericLength, I was confused.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:34 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote
In Russian we have the same problem: there is no such thing as a usual
translation of the word kind. Seems to me that russian Haskell programmers
mostly use an English word adapted to the Russian language: кайнды (kaindy).
So, I think, you can do the same thing in German, just name them Kinden
Well, I usually use whatever comes handy, but I'm sure there are other
approaches — like, for example, trying something almost unusable first.
Отправлено с iPad
05.11.2011, в 21:17, Grigory Sarnitskiy sargrig...@ya.ru написал(а):
If you are to describe a system, which consists of several
Can't be done. Even if this particular module doesn't contain instance Class
Type, it's quite possible that the said instance would be defined in another
module, about which this one knows nothing about.
On the other hand, what would you do with that information?
Отправлено с iPad
26.10.2011,
Yeah, I was going to mention Smalltalk too, as one of the languages NOT using
plain text to store programs — which led to a very strong boundary between ST
and other world, not doing any favors to the first.
The idea of using some non-plaintext-based format to store programs appeared
lots of
Control.Arrow.Transformer.State.StateArrow?
Отправлено с iPad
11.10.2011, в 17:02, Captain Freako capn.fre...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi all,
Is the Arrow-based re-definition of `StateT' included somewhere in the
`Control.Arrow.' stack, or do you put the code into your program explicitly?
data Renderer = Renderer {destroy :: IO (); render :: SystemOutput - IO ()}
newtype Initializer = Initializer {initialize :: IO Renderer}
Отправлено с iPad
03.09.2011, в 14:15, M. George Hansen technopolit...@gmail.com написал(а):
Greetings,
I'm a Python programmer who is relatively new to
Ehm... what? How can you do such a replacement without losing, for example,
functions like this:
f (KI s h) i = snd $ h i $ fst $ h i s
Отправлено с iPad
24.08.2011, в 11:43, o...@okmij.org написал(а):
I had simplified the type to make the plumbing simpler. My intention
was to include
p :: (forall o. M o - M o) - ...
Отправлено с iPad
19.08.2011, в 16:06, Anupam Jain ajn...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hi all,
Suppose I have a compound data type -
data M o = M (String,o)
Now, I can define a function that works for ALL M irrespective of o. For
example -
f :: M o - M o
Your MathExpression data type has nothing to do with numbers of any kind. Your
Float data constructor doesn't mean that float numbers are a part of your
type; instead it means that you have a SINGLE value of type MathExpression, and
this value is named Float.
You should modify your data
Not so sure; his company's website is under construction for more than a year
and after brief google'ing I still don't understand even what kind of business
are they supposed to be in. Seems more likely that it's actually Andrew who
does the spamming.
Отправлено с iPad
14.08.2011, в 21:18,
I remember myself complaining about how when one says something stupid and
corrects himself in a few minutes, it's the first message that attracts all the
attention, not the second one.
Отправлено с iPhone
Jun 22, 2011, в 8:42, Alex Rozenshteyn rpglove...@gmail.com написал(а):
Funny, I
Yeah, seems to work too.
Отправлено с iPhone
Jun 20, 2011, в 10:55, Corey O'Connor coreyocon...@gmail.com написал(а):
Not just a proposal any more. :-) GHC 7.0 does not generalize local let
bindings in some situations. See here for information:
Well, Haskell is fun, isn't it? And that's what iPhone is perfect for: fun.
Back when I had iPod Touch 1G (jailbroken, of course), I used to run Hugs on
it. Now I would love to see a Haskell interpreter in the App Store — which, by
the way, is possible; as there are Scheme interpreters there,
I fail to understand why instantiating a four-argument class with five
arguments seems obvious to you.
Отправлено с iPhone
Jun 12, 2011, в 12:37, Patrick Browne patrick.bro...@dit.ie написал(а):
class (Surfaces v o, Paths a b (v o)) = Vehicles v o a b where
-- I do not know how to make
One particularly trivial example that comes to mind is:
newtype Mu f = Mu (f (Mu f))
instance Show (f (Mu f)) = Show (Mu f) where
show (Mu x) = Mu ( ++ show x ++ )
-- Or however you'd like to show it
Ehm, that does look like poor design.
Sure you don't mean Mu f can
Yes, I'm following it too, and it seems to me that Harper just allows his
dislike for Haskell to take advantage of his judgement. Monads as a way to deal
with laziness are a very common misconception.
Отправлено с iPhone
May 2, 2011, в 11:54, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org написал(а):
I'm
It would be, if only it checked the (necessary) types during compile time. As
it is now, it seems like a claim that C is lazy just because any pointer can be
null.
Отправлено с iPhone
Apr 27, 2011, в 13:30, Henning Thielemann lemm...@henning-thielemann.de
написал(а):
I like to apply for
If I understand the problem correctly...
Prelude let diag = concat . diags where diags ((x:xs):xss) = [x] : zipWith (:)
xs (diags xss)
Prelude take 10 $ diag [[ (m,n) | n - [1..]] | m - [1..]]
[(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(1,3),(2,2),(3,1),(1,4),(2,3),(3,2),(4,1)]
Sebastian Fischer wrote on 15.04.2009
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
