Well Russian translation title goes:
Learn Haskell in the name of the Kindness
Anton
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 12-05-06 01:58 AM, Tom Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I loved the tone of those books, and I think it helps many people
learn the material. It's nice to have a little reminder every once in a
while: "good job! Now go take a break; make some cookies - here's a recipe"
Learn_You_a_Baking_for_Great . Lear
On May 3, 2012 8:40 PM, "wren ng thornton" wrote:
>
> On 5/3/12 1:26 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>>
>> The Little Lisper (and the other books
>> like The Little Schemer and The Seasoned Schemer) are
>> presumably meant to be funny, but to me come across as
>> offensively patronising
>
>
> Tis a pit
Hello,
> Could you please answer my concerns about the license under which LYAH
> is distributed? (see my initial reply to the thread)
> Additionally, under what license is your translation work re-distributed?
What I know is:
- The Japanese publisher bought the translation license from the
pu
Dear Kazu,
Could you please answer my concerns about the license under which LYAH
is distributed? (see my initial reply to the thread)
Additionally, under what license is your translation work re-distributed?
Sorry if this has been addressed already.
Best regards,
- Valentin
On Thu, May 3, 2012
On 5/3/12 1:26 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
The Little Lisper (and the other books
like The Little Schemer and The Seasoned Schemer) are
presumably meant to be funny, but to me come across as
offensively patronising
Tis a pity. I know the authors and they certainly didn't mean it to be
patronizi
Hello,
> I think the Japanese title is in a similar spirit as the original one.
> Breaking it down:
>
> Sugoi Haskell tanoshiku manabou!
>
> sugoi - "awesome" (rather colloquial)
> tanoshiku - "while having fun"
> manabou - "let's learn"
Yes, exactly.
"Sugoi" is a frank word which we cannot us
For the French translation, I dropped the humor altogether. It just doesn't
feel right to translate a reference to a meme. Plus the English phrasing is
quite impossible to express... it would have been really dumb had I tried
to stick to it.
So I opted for a close translation, but sadly, grammat
On 3/05/2012, at 5:18 AM, Brent Yorgey wrote:
> I am curious how the title was translated. Of course, the English
> title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" uses intentionally
> ungrammatical/unidiomatic English for humorous effect. Is the
> Japanese title also ungrammatical/unidiomatic Japan
2012/5/2 Felipe Almeida Lessa :
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Wojciech Jedynak wrote:
>> In formal grammar it should be "Sugoi Haskell tanoshiku WO manabou!" -
>> this WO is a particle identifying the object and this omission is
>> normal in colloquial, spoken Japanese.
>
> My basic Japanase i
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 07:37 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>
>> The English title does require a little context for the humor: it
>> leverages a chain of poor-translation memes going back (at least) to
>> all-your-base.
>>
>> I always thought it was a
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Wojciech Jedynak wrote:
> In formal grammar it should be "Sugoi Haskell tanoshiku WO manabou!" -
> this WO is a particle identifying the object and this omission is
> normal in colloquial, spoken Japanese.
My basic Japanase is very rusty, but shouldn't that be "sug
On 05/02/2012 07:37 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On 2 May 2012 18:18, Brent Yorgey wrote:
I am curious how the title was translated. Of course, the English
title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" uses intentionally
ungrammatical/unidiomatic English for humorous effect. Is the
On Wed, May
(caveat: I'm not a native speaker of Japanese)
I think the Japanese title is in a similar spirit as the original one.
Breaking it down:
Sugoi Haskell tanoshiku manabou!
sugoi - "awesome" (rather colloquial)
tanoshiku - "while having fun"
manabou - "let's learn"
In formal grammar it should be "S
On 2 May 2012 18:18, Brent Yorgey wrote:
> I am curious how the title was translated. Of course, the English
> title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" uses intentionally
> ungrammatical/unidiomatic English for humorous effect. Is the
>
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Colin Adams wrote:
> I
I don't find it (the English title) humorous. I just assumed it was written
by a non-native English speaker.
On 2 May 2012 18:18, Brent Yorgey wrote:
> I am curious how the title was translated. Of course, the English
> title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" uses intentionally
> ungrammatic
I am curious how the title was translated. Of course, the English
title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" uses intentionally
ungrammatical/unidiomatic English for humorous effect. Is the
Japanese title also ungrammatical/unidiomatic Japanese? Or do
Japanese speakers not find that humorous?
-
Hello cafe,
Translating "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" into Japanese was
finished and will be published on 22 May. I guess it's worth watching
its cover page:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%81%99%E3%81%94%E3%81%84Haskell%E3%81%9F%E3%81%AE%E3%81%97%E3%81%8F%E5%AD%A6%E3%81%BC%E3%81%86-M
On 7 Mar 2011, at 23:38, Alexander Solla wrote:
>_|_ /= (_|_,_|_)
>
> > (undefined, undefined)
> (*** Exception: Prelude.undefined
>
> That is as close to Haskell-equality as you can get for a proto-value that
> does not have an Eq instance. As a consequence of referential transparency,
>
On 3/7/11 6:58 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
The "magic" semantics of evaluating the first argument are done by the
compiler/runtime, and are apparently not expressible in Haskell.
Of course this is true. The only ways of forcing evaluation in Haskell
are (a) to perform pattern matches on a value
On Tuesday 08 March 2011 00:38:53, Alexander Solla wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:06 AM, wren ng thornton
wrote:
> >
> > If we have,
> >
> > data OneTuple a = One a
> >
> > Then
> >
> >_|_ /= One _|_
>
> That is vacuously true. I will demonstrate the source of the
> contradiction
>
On 3/7/11 6:38 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
'seq' is not a "function", since it breaks referential transparency and
possibly extensionality in function composition. By construction, "seq a b
= b", and yet "seq undefined b /= b". Admittedly, the Haskell report and
the GHC implementation, diverge o
On Tuesday 08 March 2011 00:58:36, Alexander Solla wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, if you read GHC.Prim, you will see that seq is a
> bottom!
No, you don't. GHC.Prim is a dummy module whose only purpose is to let
haddock generate documentation. Every function there has the code
let x = x in x, e
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
>
>
> This can be detected by seq: the left-hand side doesn't terminate, whereas
>> the right-hand side does. And moreover, this can mess up other things (e.g.,
>> monads) by introducing too much laziness. Space leaks are quite a serious
>> ma
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:06 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 3/4/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM, wren ng thornton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/11 2:58 AM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
On 7/03/2011, at 5:38 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> Defn 1. Given four arbitrary a, b, c and d on a set X which is an
> instance of Ord (so a = b, a > b and a < b are defined), let:
> (a, b) > (c, d) iff a > c (GT)
> (a, b) < (c, d) iff a < c (LT)
> (a, b) = (c, d) iff a = c. (EQ)
> (pleas
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>
> On 4/03/2011, at 10:47 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/03/2011, at 5:49 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
I meant: there is no reasonable way of ordering tuples, let alo
On 4/03/2011, at 10:47 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>>
>> On 4/03/2011, at 5:49 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>>> I meant: there is no reasonable way of ordering tuples, let alone enum
>>> them.
>>
>> There are several reasonable ways to o
On 3/4/11 4:33 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 3/3/11 2:58 AM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
Thanks - is this the same "unit" that accompanies IO in "IO ()" ? In
any case,
On Friday 04 March 2011 22:33:20, Alexander Solla wrote:
> > Unfortunately, Haskell's tuples aren't quite products.[1]
>
> I'm not seeing this either. (A,B) is certainly the Cartesian product of
> A and B.
Not quite in Haskell, there
(A,B) = A×B \union {_|_}
_|_ and (_|_,b) are distinguishable
On Friday 04 March 2011 17:45:13, Markus Läll wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't mean to answer you in particular. I meant to say that
> for tuples you could (I think) have an enumeration over them without
> requiring any component be bounded.
Yes, you can (at least mathematically, it may be different if yo
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 3/3/11 2:58 AM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks - is this the same "unit" that accompanies IO in "IO ()" ? In
>>> any case, my question is answered sinc
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Markus Läll wrote:
>
> Would this also have an uncomputable order type? At least for comparing
> tuples you'd just:
You can tell if an enumeration will have an uncomputable order type by
whether or not your enumeration has to "count to infinity" before it can
con
Sorry, I didn't mean to answer you in particular. I meant to say that for
tuples you could (I think) have an enumeration over them without requiring
any component be bounded.
An example of type (Integer, Integer) you would have:
[(0,0) ..] = [(0,0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,2) (1,1) (2,0) ... ]
where the o
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 17:37, Chris Smith wrote:
> The most common use of Ord in real code, to be honest, is to use the value
> in some data structure like Data.Set.Set or Data.Map.Map, which requires Ord
> instances. For this purpose, any Ord instance that is compatible with Eq
> will do fine.
On 4 March 2011 09:47, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> I'm not able to still appreciate the choice of the default ordering order,
>
I don't know if this will help you appreciate the default or not, but just
to say this default is concordant with the auto-derived Ord instances.
data Tuple3 a b c = Tup
On Mar 4, 2011 2:49 AM, "Karthick Gururaj"
wrote:
> > Ord has to be compatible with Eq, and none of these are.
> Hmm.. not true. Can you explain what do you mean by "compatibility"?
Compatibility would mean that x == y if and only if compare x y == EQ. This
is not a restricrion enforced by the t
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>
> On 4/03/2011, at 5:49 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>> I meant: there is no reasonable way of ordering tuples, let alone enum
>> them.
>
> There are several reasonable ways to order tuples.
>>
>> That does not mean we can't define them:
>>
On 3/3/11 2:58 AM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
Thanks - is this the same "unit" that accompanies IO in "IO ()" ? In
any case, my question is answered since it is not a tuple.
It can be viewed as the trivial 0-tuple.
Except t
On 4/03/2011, at 5:49 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> I meant: there is no reasonable way of ordering tuples, let alone enum
> them.
There are several reasonable ways to order tuples.
>
> That does not mean we can't define them:
> 1. (a,b) > (c,d) if a>c
Not really reasonable because it isn't com
There are so many responses, that I do not know where to start..
I'm top-posting since that seems best here, let me know if there are
group guidelines against that.
Some clarifications in order on my original post:
a. I ASSUMED that '()' refers to tuples, where we have atleast a pair.
This is fro
On Friday 04 March 2011 03:24:34, Markus wrote:
> What about having the order by diagonals, like:
>
> 0 1 3
> 2 4
> 5
>
> and have none of the pair be bounded?
>
I tacitly assumed product order (lexicographic order).
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Has
What about having the order by diagonals, like:
0 1 3
2 4
5
and have none of the pair be bounded?
--
Markus Läll
On 4 Mar 2011, at 01:10, Daniel Fischer > wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2011 23:25:48, Alexander Solla wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Richard O'Keefe
wrote:
I can't t
On Thursday 03 March 2011 23:25:48, Alexander Solla wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Richard O'Keefe
wrote:
> > I can't think of an approach that doesn't require all but one of
> > the tuple elements to have Bounded types.
>
> It's not possible.
Meaning: It's not possible while respect
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>
> I can't think of an approach that doesn't require all but one of
> the tuple elements to have Bounded types.
It's not possible. Such an enumeration could potentially have an
uncomputable order-type, possibly equal to the order-type of
By the way, tuples *can* be members of Enum if you make them so.
Try
instance (Enum a, Enum b, Bounded b) => Enum (a,b)
where
toEnum n = (a, b)
where a = toEnum (n `div` s)
b = toEnum (n `mod` s)
p = fromEnum (minBound `asTypeOf` b)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Karthick Gururaj <
karthick.guru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm learning Haskell from the extremely well written (and well
> illustrated as well!) tutorial - http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters.
> I have couple of questions from my readings so far.
>
> In "
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Paul Sujkov wrote:
> Hi,
> you can always check the types using GHCi prompt:
> *Prelude> :i (,)
> data (,) a b = (,) a b -- Defined in GHC.Tuple
> instance (Bounded a, Bounded b) => Bounded (a, b)
> -- Defined in GHC.Enum
> instance (Eq a, Eq b) => Eq (a, b) -- De
Hi,
you can always check the types using GHCi prompt:
*Prelude> :i (,)
data (,) a b = (,) a b -- Defined in GHC.Tuple
instance (Bounded a, Bounded b) => Bounded (a, b)
-- Defined in GHC.Enum
instance (Eq a, Eq b) => Eq (a, b) -- Defined in Data.Tuple
instance Functor ((,) a) -- Defined in Contr
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> Thanks - is this the same "unit" that accompanies IO in "IO ()" ? In
> any case, my question is answered since it is not a tuple.
It can be viewed as the trivial 0-tuple.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antt
On 3 March 2011 17:59, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Chris Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 11:39 +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>>> What is the "()" type? Does it refer to a tuple? How can tuple be
>>> ordered, let alone be enum'd? I tried:
>>
>> The () type is
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 11:39 +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
>> What is the "()" type? Does it refer to a tuple? How can tuple be
>> ordered, let alone be enum'd? I tried:
>
> The () type is pronounced "unit". It is a type with only 1 value, als
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 11:39 +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
> What is the "()" type? Does it refer to a tuple? How can tuple be
> ordered, let alone be enum'd? I tried:
The () type is pronounced "unit". It is a type with only 1 value, also
called () and pronounced "unit". Since it only has one po
Hello,
I'm learning Haskell from the extremely well written (and well
illustrated as well!) tutorial - http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters.
I have couple of questions from my readings so far.
In "typeclasses - 101"
(http://learnyouahaskell.com/types-and-typeclasses#typeclasses-101),
there is a p
54 matches
Mail list logo
