On 8/13/12 5:42 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
One difficulty which must impede many who study this stuff is
that just getting off the ground seems to require a large number
of definitions of objects of logically different kinds. (By
logic I mean real logic, not any particular formalized system.)
We
On 8/13/12 9:25 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I did suspect that, in some sense, constraints in combination
with forall could give the quantifier exists.
It's even easier than that.
(forall a. P(a)) - Q = exists a. (P(a) - Q)
Where P and Q are metatheoretic/schematic variables. This is
On 15 August 2012 13:04, KC kc1...@gmail.com wrote:
:m +Data.Array.Repa.Algorithms.Randomish
cabal install repa.algrothms
would be more consistent.
Why would that be?
They look completely different to me...
--
--
Regards,
KC
--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com
Hello everyone,
I am quite new to monadic code so I would like to ask for improvement
suggestions on the last line of the code below.
I know I could do something like do strs - mapM ...; intercalate ...
etc, but I would like to avoid the use of -.
Thank you,
José
data XmlState = XmlState
Hi all,
I've been working with Aristid on an enhancement to resourcet[1]. Please
see the issue for more details, this email isn't about that change.
Instead, now that we're looking at a new breaking release, I was wondering
if anyone had ideas of something they thought should be changed in
On 15/08/12 17:01, José Lopes wrote:
someFn docs =
return concat `ap` (sequence $ intersperse (return \n) (map loop docs))
First of all, return x `ap` y = x `fmap` y or x $ y. fmap (or its infix
synonym ($)) is the answer here, you could write:
someFn docs = concat . intersperse \n $
Try:
concat . intersperse \n $ (sequence $ map loop docs)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM, José Lopes jose.lo...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am quite new to monadic code so I would like to ask for improvement
suggestions on the last line of the code below.
I know I could do
Thank you.
On 15-08-2012 23:09, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
On 15/08/12 17:01, José Lopes wrote:
someFn docs =
return concat `ap` (sequence $ intersperse (return \n) (map loop
docs))
First of all, return x `ap` y = x `fmap` y or x $ y. fmap (or
its infix synonym ($)) is the answer here,
On Aug 15, 2012 3:21 AM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
It's even easier than that.
(forall a. P(a)) - Q = exists a. (P(a) - Q)
Where P and Q are metatheoretic/schematic variables. This is just the
usual thing about antecedents being in a negative position, and thus
flipping
Hello Cafe.
Consider code, that takes input from handle until special substring matched:
matchInf a res s | a `isPrefixOf` s = reverse res
matchInf a res (c:cs) = matchInf a (c:res) cs
hTakeWhileNotFound str hdl = hGetContents hdl = return.matchInf str []
It is simple, but
On 12-08-15 03:20 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
(forall a. P(a)) - Q = exists a. (P(a) - Q)
For example:
A. (forall p. p drinks) - (everyone drinks)
B. exists p. ((p drinks) - (everyone drinks))
In a recent poll, 100% of respondents think A true, 90% of them think B
paradoxical, and
I wrote this Gen to generate lines of texts without \NUL and \n:
fullLinesProp = forAll linesGen ...
linesGen = listOf . listOf $ arbitrary `suchThat` (`notElem`
['\NUL', '\n'])
-- alternatively:
linesGen = arbitrary `suchThat` (all (all (`notElem` ['\NUL', '\n'])))
However, I
Hi, folks -
I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase cabal dependency hell at
this point, as the number of projects on Hackage that are intended to hack
around the problem slowly grows.
I am currently undergoing a fresh visit to that unhappy realm, as I try to
rebuild some of my packages to
In classical logic A - B is the equivalent to ~A v B
(with ~ = not and v = or)
So
(forall a. P(a)) - Q
{implication = not-or}
~(forall a. P(a)) v Q
{forall a. X is equivalent to there does not exist a such that X doesn't
hold}
~(~exists a. ~P(a)) v Q
{double negation elimination}
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
I propose that the sense of the recommendation around upper bounds in the
PVP be reversed: upper bounds should be specified only when there is a known
problem with a new version of a depended-upon package.
This
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com
wrote:
I propose that the sense of the recommendation around upper bounds in the
PVP be reversed: upper bounds should be specified only when
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.comwrote:
So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being
*added* will never happen again?
Of course I am sure that problems will arise as a result of recommending
that upper bounds be added reactively;
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being
*added* will never happen again?
It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had
any when we wrote the policy (but Duncan
Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound
added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively,
so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate?
On Aug 15, 2012 1:45 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.comwrote:
Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound
added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively,
so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate?
I don't think so. It
it's usual for the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't
exist at the time of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable).
Well, known to be stable given semantic versioning, then.
http://semver.org/
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com
As someone who recurrently is nudging a large number of maintainers every
major ghc release to bump their bounds, I favor the no upper bounds
approach! :)
plus the whole improving ecosystem of build bot tools which play nice with
cabal et al that are cropping up mean that in principal we could
I definitely agree!
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/x4knd/what_is_the_reason_for_haskells_cabal_package/
L.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Hi, folks -
I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase cabal dependency hell at this
point, as the number
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com
wrote:
So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being
*added* will never happen again?
It would be useful to have some
no one is disputing that there are conditional changes in dependencies
depending on library versions.
an interesting intermediate point would be have a notion of testing with
constraints in cabal and engineering cabal to support a
--withTestedConstraints to have a simple composable way of
Upper bounds are a bit of a catch-22 when it comes to library authors evolving
their APIs:
1) If library clients aren't encouraged to specify which version of the
exported API they target, then changing APIs can lead to opaque compile
errors (without any information about which API is
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Carter Schonwald
carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote:
no one is disputing that there are conditional changes in dependencies
depending on library versions.
Indeed. But the ghc release that split up base broke cabalised packages
with no warning to users until
I understand this now, though I still don't understand the context. Thanks!
I managed to mix up implication with causation, to my great embarrassment.
On Aug 15, 2012 3:39 PM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
In classical logic A - B is the equivalent to ~A v B
(with ~ = not and v = or)
Welcome to issue 240 of the HWN, an issue covering crowd-sourced bits
of information about Haskell from around the web. This issue covers the
week of August 05 to 11, 2012.
Quotes of the Week
* johnw: Monads are an interface, all bets are off until you see what
the interface does for a
Oh, this is silly. Of course it is:
forAllShrink linesGen shrink ...
On 15/08/12 20:35, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
I wrote this Gen to generate lines of texts without \NUL and \n:
fullLinesProp = forAll linesGen ...
linesGen = listOf . listOf $ arbitrary `suchThat` (`notElem`
On 16 August 2012 08:55, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Carter Schonwald
carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote:
no one is disputing that there are conditional changes in dependencies
depending on library versions.
Indeed. But the ghc release that
I just want to get started on some matrix operations with REPA.
Or is there a library (package?) like REPA without using the LLVM?
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 16 August 2012 11:21, KC kc1...@gmail.com wrote:
I just want to get started on some matrix operations with REPA.
Or is there a library (package?) like REPA without using the LLVM?
If you're referring to your recent problems with repa-algorithms, you
can try this:
cabal unpack
On 16 August 2012 03:38, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
Hi, folks -
I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase cabal dependency hell at this
point, as the number of projects on Hackage that are intended to hack around
the problem slowly grows.
I am currently undergoing a
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 August 2012 08:55, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. But the ghc release that split up base broke cabalised packages
with no warning to users until they failed to compile. Upper
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:02 PM, MightyByte mightyb...@gmail.com wrote:
be to add a flag to Cabal/cabal-install that would cause it to ignore
upper bounds. (Frankly, I think it would also be great if
Ignore, or at least treat them as being like flags... if the versions don't
converge with
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Conrad Parker con...@metadecks.org wrote:
On 16 August 2012 03:38, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
Hi, folks -
I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase cabal dependency hell at
this
point, as the number of projects on Hackage that are
37 matches
Mail list logo
