let
bindings?)
I had in mind both, and all other kinds of scoping as well, e.g., module
imports.
--
Frank Atanassow, Dept. of Computer Science, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands
Tel +31 (030) 253-1012, Fax +31 (030) 251-3791
in a typed language,
because its apparent from the source code, and/or automatically checkable by
merely compiling the source code.
---
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Tel +31 (0)30 253-3261 Fax +31
something to that effect,
that it's not the paradigm which matters, but rather the existence of nice
properties, or effectively simple semantics, as you said. But C is not such
a language.
---
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508TB
choice by treating free variable environments as
(multi-)sets. (Of course, you lose that advantage when you package up your
environment in a closure, because Haskell distinguishes between a - b - c
and b - a - c, even though they are isomorphic.)
---
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing
(of kind
*). So there is a kind mismatch. Try this instead:
data SuperSet a = SuperSet (SetAsList a)
instance Set SuperSet a where
...
--
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands
Tel +31 (030) 253-3261 Fax
, there are 10 people who would say the
opposite. Shall we take a poll?
--
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands
Tel +31 (030) 253-3261 Fax +31 (030) 251-379
. You can always apply these to
a stream, and they will never fail. But if you try that with lists, you will
raise an error once you get to the end of it.
--
Frank Atanassow, Information Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands
Tel +31 (030
David Roundy wrote (on 21-09-02 07:30 -0400):
Here is what I'd like to do:
\begin{code}
data D = A String | B String
instance Show D where
show = showD
instance Read D where
readsPrec _ = readsD
readD s = (readsA s) ++ (readsB s)
\end{code}
A is formatted like ``A
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote (on 22-10-02 13:05 +0200):
What do you think, what
is the Rational form of 2.3 ? (GHCi says 23/10).
The answer is:
2589569785738035 % 1125899906842624
Er, why?
Because 2.3 is not representable using a double precision float or something?
--
Frank
Frank Atanassow wrote (on 22-10-02 15:08 +0200):
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote (on 22-10-02 13:05 +0200):
What do you think, what
is the Rational form of 2.3 ? (GHCi says 23/10).
The answer is:
2589569785738035 % 1125899906842624
Er, why?
Because 2.3 is not representable using
Lauri Alanko wrote (on 20-12-02 11:26 +0200):
For what it's worth, I will probably be doing my MSc thesis on
adapting eval (and reflection in general) to a statically typed
language. Essentially you need a run-time representation of the
environment and the typing context, and a type system
On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 14:44 Europe/Amsterdam, Graham Klyne
wrote:
My problem is this: how does it make sense to define an equality of
morphisms without some well-defined concept of equality on the
underlying objects to which they apply? That is, given object X and
an object Y, it is
On vrijdag, sep 26, 2003, at 09:16 Europe/Amsterdam, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:59:12AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I think there is a problem with too much overloaded syntax. Perhaps
it is time to put non-ASCII characters to good use?
For instance, function composition could
On dinsdag, nov 4, 2003, at 00:39 Europe/Amsterdam, Frank Atanassow
wrote:
For example, our translator takes the Schema type doc (representing a
bibliographic entry) ... to a certain ugly datatype X.
Oops. For X I should have written E_doc, that is, the translation of
Schema type doc is named
On May 6, 2004, at 6:59 PM, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
I think someone wrote a book about multi-media
apps in Haskell (I've seen a chapter somewhere
from Conal Elliot) but I don't remember what it
was.
Probably Paul Hudak's The Haskell School of Expression.
http://www.haskell.org/soe/
I had
On May 3, 2004, at 5:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got an interesting task this week for my job. (Note that this
will undoubtably last for longer than a week). I'm evaluating several
high-level languages as development vehicles for our next suite of
applications. The languages I'm
On Jun 9, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
I have *nothing* to add, just a question.
Do you /anybody/ know of any edible work on ADJUNCTIONS in the context
of Haskell structures? Perhaps instead of searching for 'inverses' one
should think more about adjoints?...
Yes, I think this is
First, concerning your question about monads and multiplication: a
monad on category C is exactly a monoid object in the category [C-C]
of endofunctors on C, and natural transformations between them. A
monoid in a category is, as you expect, an object X with arrows
m:X*X-X and u:1-X satisfying
On Jun 29, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Iavor S. Diatchki wrote:
In Haskell, natural transformations are polymorphic functions, tau
:: f a - g a. For example, maybeToList :: Maybe a - [a].
actually i think this is a good approximation. not all polymorphic
functions are natural transformations, but simple
On Aug 9, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Closed classes are certainly interesting, but a better way to go in
this case is to allow the programmer to declear new kinds, as well as
new types. This is what Tim Sheard's language Omega lets you do, and
I'm considering adding it to GHC.
20 matches
Mail list logo
