Benjamin wrote (snipped):
> Typeable would be completely safe if the only way to declare instances
> would be to derive them, but this is only practical if it can be done
> from anywhere outside the data type definition.
Unfortunately this would also outlaw some legitimate uses of Typeable.
In part
Marcin wrote (snipped):
> I think global variables are a lot less evil if they behave as if they
> were dynamically scoped, like Lisp special variables.
>
> That is, there is a construct which gives the variable a new mutable
> binding visible in the given IO action. It's used more often than
> ass
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:46:03 +, Ben Rudiak-Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Franksen wrote:
>
> > My god, what a stupid mistake. I should just give it up... :-(
>
> Funny you should say that, because I made the same mistake two weeks ago
> and felt the same way:
>
> http://www
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
My god, what a stupid mistake. I should just give it up... :-(
Funny you should say that, because I made the same mistake two weeks ago
and felt the same way:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2004-November/007556.html
Live and learn...
-- Ben
_
On Thursday 25 November 2004 01:14, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> >label1 = unique Uniq1
> >label2 = unique Uniq2
> >global1 = functionalNewMVar label1 True
> >global2 = functionalNewMVar label1 (117::Int)
>
> No dice. Your example inadvertently shows why:
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
>label1 = unique Uniq1
>label2 = unique Uniq2
>global1 = functionalNewMVar label1 True
>global2 = functionalNewMVar label1 (117::Int)
No dice. Your example inadvertently shows why: you used label1 when
creating both global1 and global2, and now I can write
[encouraging everybody to reply on haskell-cafe]
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 12:02, you wrote:
> Thanks to the encouraging post
>
> http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell/2004-November/014748.html
>
> from Benjamin Franksen, I have implemented
> my proposal which allows the user to define n
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Keean Schupke wrote:
> >
> >> If you tell me the library you wish to use I may be able
> >> to suggest a better alternative.
> >
> > I'm using FFTW and PLPlot (but not with Haskell
Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Keean Schupke wrote:
>
>> If you tell me the library you wish to use I may be able
>> to suggest a better alternative.
>
> I'm using FFTW and PLPlot (but not with Haskell), both
> uses internal states and thus must be considered
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Keean Schupke wrote:
> For 'broken' libraries that cannot support multiple simultaneous
> contexts, it would be better to use the 'C' FFI based solution
> suggested by another poster. Ideally you would want to find
> a library with a better interface - If you tell me the libra
Quoting Peter Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> jeff writes:
>
> >> Just ask the C++ folks about the wonders of global
> >> variables that are actually complex classes with a
> >> constructor and a destructor.
>
> > You can't use that as an argument against global
> > variables in other language
jeff writes:
>> Just ask the C++ folks about the wonders of global
>> variables that are actually complex classes with a
>> constructor and a destructor.
> You can't use that as an argument against global
> variables in other languages.
Why not? Does the creation of global variables never
Quoting Peter Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just ask the C++ folks about the
> wonders of global variables that are actually complex
> classes with a constructor and a destructor.
You can't use that as an argument against global variables
in other languages.
-- Jeff
_
Adrian Hey writes:
>> I don't see any value in problems that are
>> specifically designed so that they can be solved
>> only with a global entity.
> Even if it was true that I had "specifically
> designed" this problem, it's existance is of some
> interest I think.
Perhaps my choice of wor
14 matches
Mail list logo
