Sengan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/avg.html
>
> I wonder how Haskell compares in this regard.
> Any comment from Haskell startups? (eg Galois Connections)
I already see John Launchbury asking us not to teach Haskell
anymore ;-)
Manuel
Hi, I'm fairly new to Haskell, and recently I came upon a question which asks to capitalise all words in a given list. I haveno idea how to do it, can you help? Thanks!Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
Hello!
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:31:54AM -0700, lynn yeong wrote:
> Hi, I'm fairly new to Haskell, and recently I came upon a question which asks to
>capitalise all words in a given list. I haveno idea how to do it, can you help?
>Thanks!
[please wrap your lines!]
How about this:
import Cha
At 2001-05-02 01:34, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>How about this:
>
>import Char(toUpper)
>
>capitalize :: String -> String
>capitalize [] = []
>capitalize (c:cs) = toUpper c : cs
>
>capitalizeList :: [String] -> [String]
>capitalizeList = map capitalize
...or if you prefer...
capitalizeList :: [St
(B) Monomorphism restriction "wins"
Bindings that fall under the monomorphism restriction can't
be generalised
Always generalise over implicit parameters *except* for bindings
that fall under the monomorphism restriction
I am relatively new to Haskell.
Somebody told me that it is a very good language, because all the
people on its mailing list are so nice that they solve all
homeworks, even quite silly, of all students around, provided they
ask for a solution in Haskell.
Is that true, or a little exaggerated?
(apologies if you receive more than one copy of this).
Call for abstracts to the
Erlang Workshop
Firenze, September 2, 2001, in connection with PLI2001
(Principles, Logics, and Implementations of high-level
programming languages).
Scope
Contributions are invited on experience with and
appl
> I am relatively new to Haskell.
>
> Somebody told me that it is a very good language, because all the
> people on its mailing list are so nice that they solve all
> homeworks, even quite silly, of all students around, provided they
> ask for a solution in Haskell.
>
> Is that true, or a littl
At 2001-05-02 04:54, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
>Ah, but (i) not all the solutions are correct (sorry Ashley);
That rather depends on what you mean by CAPITALISE, does it not?
capitalise, -ize to print or write with capital letters [Chambers]
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
__
> >Ah, but (i) not all the solutions are correct (sorry Ashley);
>
> That rather depends on what you mean by CAPITALISE, does it not?
>
> capitalise, -ize to print or write with capital letters [Chambers]
I guess so. Maybe someone at Monash University (Australia) would care
to
enlighten us?
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> I am relatively new to Haskell.
>
> Somebody told me that it is a very good language, because all the
> people on its mailing list are so nice that they solve all
> homeworks, even quite silly, of all students around, provided they
> ask for a s
FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS
[Deadline for submission: 1st June 2001]
2001 Haskell Workshop
Firenze, Italy, 2nd September 2001
John Hughes wrote:
>
> I think it's important to have a simple model of how many
> times expressions are evaluated. Function bodies are clearly
> evaluated many times, once for each call, but non-function
> bindings should be evaluated at most once to respect
> call-by-need semantics.
Maybe I mi
Hello!
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:42:55AM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> At 2001-05-02 01:34, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >capitalize (c:cs) = toUpper c : cs
> >capitalizeList = map capitalize
> ...or if you prefer...
> capitalizeList :: [String] -> [String]
> capitalizeList = map (map toUpper)
> [...many lines deleted...]
> I think it's important to have a simple model of how many times
expressions
> are evaluated. Function bodies are clearly evaluated many times, once for
each
> call, but non-function bindings should be evaluated at most once to
respect
> call-by-need semantics. Breaki
John Hughes wrote:
> ... Function bodies are clearly evaluated many times, once for each
> call, but non-function bindings should be evaluated at most once to respect
> call-by-need semantics.
Isn't this a very fragile distinction? It seems so susceptible
to routine program transformations by
Matt Harden wrote:
> blah, blah, blah, bug in the Library Report, blah, blah...
OK, so I failed to read the Library Report. It clearly states:
> An implementation is entitled to assume the following laws about these operations:
>
> range (l,u) !! index (l,u) i == i -- when i is in
I know just enuf about existential types in Haskell to be dangerous. While
trying to learn a little more about how to use them, I keep running into
problem. The existential types work great for code that I constructed if the
functions take a single argument. However, if the function takes mor
| As far as what one would `expect', it's in the very nature of
| dynamic binding that it makes the meaning of an expression
| depend on its context. I for one would certainly not expect
| that inlining a definition bound to such an
| expression should preserve its meaning! Inlining changes th
19 matches
Mail list logo
