On 2/2/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 17:24 schrieb Taral:
On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
Steal
On 2/2/06, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would open the possibility to allow unary (prefix) operators in
general which I find rather more useful than sections.
Down that road lies APL.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy
... diverse.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
On 2/23/06, Ben Rudiak-Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, this suggests a compromise: how about implicitly importing the
Prelude only if the module header is omitted? That way there'll be no impact
on short (single-module) programs.
+1
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science
On 3/13/06, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[still talking to myself..?]
This is all wonderful stuff! Are you perhaps planning to put it all
together into a paper?
What effect do you think this can have on existing algorithms to resolve FDs?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science
On 3/19/06, Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Adding my Data.Fixed module to the base package.
http://semantic.org/TimeLib/doc/html/Data-Fixed.html
http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/time/fixed/Data/Fixed.hs
When would you used a (Fixed a) without (HasResolution a)?
--
Taral
On 3/20/06, Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never as far as I can imagine. The 'a' parameter will be taken by a
phantom type.
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Phantom_type
Now I don't recall, but is it allowed to do:
data HasResolution a = Fixed a = ...?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You
? I think that the new confluence results
lends a lot towards the adoption of FDs in Haskell'.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http
of a function result's
subcomponents.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
a,
thus removing the HasResolution condition on your instances.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
refers to the idea that somehow
such strictness annotations are (a) required at the type level and (b)
required at all to enable such optimization. I believe the
optimization happens without any annotation from the user, and it
should stay that way.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything
to change your code.
That kind of tweaking isn't required to simulate this. a `seq` b
`seq` (a, b) is perfectly sufficient, and is quite commonly seen in
such programs.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
/orElse?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
concurrent -- the hard one
{- nothing -}
Can I suggest sef in this? Most cases of unsafe are actually
claims that the call is side-effect free.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell
single ones. Can we please have something like:
threadWait :: Timeout - [Handle] - IO ?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org
is this necessary?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
was thinking that it might be more useful to express it programatically:
if preemptive then fork _|_ return () = ()
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
... returnsquickly?
Hear, hear:
fast - takes very little time to execute
pure - side-effect free
nocallback - does not call back into Haskell
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing
On 4/15/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the downside, this means that I couldn't just say:
take 5 mylist
I'd instead have to write:
take (5::Int) mylist
Wouldn't defaulting do this?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
on what level of
*minimum* termination support Haskell' will insist upon. The CHR paper
(with the confluence improvements by Claus) is currently the most
promising option, and has an implementation (another important
consideration) in GHC.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything
or interpreter.
Perhaps this could be forwarded onto the GHC and other compiler people
for consideration as an extension?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
:
module A contains instance Monad []
module B contains instance Functor []
module C imports A and B.
Do we complain about a duplicate instance declarations? If not, does
the use of fmap in A use the default definition, or the one from B?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything
Functor comes into scope via import.
The current proposal to require people to write instance Functor
isn't so pretty as the hierarchy becomes more fine-grained:
instance Monad [] where
instance Functor
instance PointedFunctor
instance Applicative
...
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You
of the underlying collection (hence
the numerous fold* functions), map is not.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman
be implemented requirement for major features. However, it
seems that Haskell' is a good way to get people thinking about future
improvements, and I'd hate to stifle that.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
indentation does
nothing to improve readability, and is a common frustration. The point
of all sugar is to reduce frustration, so I am strongly in favor of
the new syntax.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
. The
layout rule never generates empty braces.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
, for example.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
as unfriendly to Fortran programmers.
[breaking cc list]
Would this kind of thing be eligible for Haskell'? I never had a
problem with _1 in APL-type languages... and I think it's best to be
very clear about intent.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I
On 5/24/07, Adrian Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
The other syntaxes proposed don't strike me as sufficiently rigorous.
Me neither. It's always been a great source of puzzlement to me why this
very simple and IMO conservative proposal should be so controversial.
Unless someone can
30 matches
Mail list logo
