| Some experts (like Hans Boehm) argue, that concurrency can't be added
to
| the language as a library.
| http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf
|
| This is true for many imperative programming languages. Haskell seems
| to be an exception:
|
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:27AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The interface can be a library, but (a) what libraries are available is
part of the language definition and (b) it's hard to build a good
implementation without runtime support. And the nature of the runtime
support depends
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:27AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Some experts (like Hans Boehm) argue, that concurrency can't be added
to
| the language as a library.
| http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf
|
| This is true for many imperative programming
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:22:17 AM, you wrote:
1) significantly simplifies declarations using typeclasses. i
was seriously bitten by those huge declarations, and think that
simplification in this area will lead to much wider use of type
classes by the ordibary users (like
Hello Benjamin,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote:
(+ x) --- (? + x)
i like this idea! but i tink that it's too late for such incompatible change :(
really, unary operators can be added to language without any troubles.
we need only to prohibit using of the same symbol for unary
Hello Tomasz,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 10:52:22 AM, you wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as
TZ a library without introducing
Hello John,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 3:39:38 AM, you wrote:
Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
JM sure do :)
JM but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
JM operators.
are you read this? :)
Log:
Add support for UTF-8 source files
GHC finally has
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 1:46:56 AM, you wrote:
i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to this discussion:
make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
expressions of form f x into f $! x and then going to the standard
(lazy) haskell translator.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Ross Paterson wrote:
As another example, Ben Rudiak-Gould recently pointed out that the
inclusion of stToIO breaks threaded state reasoning for ST, e.g.
readSTRef won't necessarily get what your last writeSTRef wrote (because
the region might be RealWorld, with other threads
We must find *something* to throw away though! :-)
Simon
Indeed. One of the things I had been hoping for in Haskell'
was the removal of the many conservative restrictions put
into earlier definitions: they complicate the language definition,
restrict expressiveness, and have prompted various
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:43:24PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Friday, February 03, 2006, 10:52:22 AM, you wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Underscore
I think it is basically the wrong idea to encode (type and) usage
information in the name of an identifier. One should use the type system
for that, or, failing that, annotations. Something like
data Foo = Foo |
On 03 February 2006 00:40, John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM -0600, Taral wrote:
Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
sure do :)
but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specify that
On 03 February 2006 04:07, Taral wrote:
On 2/2/06, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specify
that yet until some sort of standard develops. Once there are more
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:00:32AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:27AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The interface can be a library, but (a) what libraries are available is
part of the language definition and (b) it's hard to build a good
implementation without
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:00:23PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as
TZ a library without introducing any problems... but we have
TZ concurrency in the standard anyway...
concurrency should go into the
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Maybe this is just me being dense, but how is poll or select
concurrency? There is no multiprocessing involved; it is simply a more
efficient way to find which file descriptors are ready for some I/O
action.
I know, of course,
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:00:32AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:27AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The interface can be a library, but (a) what libraries are available is
part of the language
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:56:41PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I know, of course, that Java green threads and Haskell forkIO threads
are called threads, but I personally believe its misleading to call it
concurrency -- they're
On 2006-02-03, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:56:41PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I know, of course, that Java green threads and Haskell forkIO threads
are called threads, but I personally
On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Benjamin,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote:
(+ x) --- (? + x)
i like this idea! but i tink that it's too late for such
incompatible change :(
really, unary operators can be added to language without any troubles.
Hello Tomasz,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:00:23 PM, you wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as
TZ a library without
Henrik Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear all,
John Mecham wrote:
Yeah, I have been coming to the same conclusion myself. it pains me a
lot. (monad transformers! I need thee!) but its not like fundeps will
go away, they will just still be experimental so it isn't the end of
the world.
Somewhat apropos. The following recent post on LtU links to some
slides by Tim Sweeney (Epic Games) wherein he discusses things he
does and doesn't like about Haskell.
Notable points:
== Positive on ST (implies need for rank 2 types)
== Positive on Concurrency and STM
== Positive on
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:18:58AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:56:41PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I know, of course, that Java green threads and Haskell forkIO threads
are called threads, but I
I just added a ticket requesting that some definitions be added to the
wiki (so that other pages and tickets can link to them, helping to
demystify jargon for those who don't specialise in specific fields). I've
also included quick definitions for predicative and impredicative in
the ticket,
I would like to strive to find objective data on the use of
extensions. I started a table here which summarizes how popular
extensions are in real-life code. We need more data points, though.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ExtensionsExperiment
I have a short program which
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:09:40PM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I just added a ticket requesting that some definitions be added to the
wiki (so that other pages and tickets can link to them, helping to
demystify jargon for those who don't specialise in specific fields). I've
also
Following the helpful call to attend to priorities, I reluctantly return to
the M-R discussion. I believe a point has been missed that should be a part
of this thread.
On 2006 January 30, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
But the most important argument against M-R hasn't been put forward yet.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33:12PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
One question is how to get some kind of do notation that would work well
in a strict setting.
The existing do notation makes use of lazyness in so far as the second
arg of is only evaluated when needed. Perhaps a new keyword
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if my idea was incorporated in Haskell, this change don't require
even changing signatures of most functions working with arrays -
just Array type become Array interface, what a much difference?
What would 'Eq - Eq - Ord - Bool' mean?
'(Eq a, Eq b,
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
Now i'm trying to generalize my functions parameters/results to type
classes instead of single types. for example, getFileSize function can
return any numeric value, be it Integer, Word or Int64. This,
naturally, results in those long and awkward signatures. Allowing
32 matches
Mail list logo
