On Friday, January 09, 2004 2:48 AM, Ashley Yakeley
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Do you have an example of use of Y for letrec where a program would
> violate R5RS?
Sure, take a look at my implementation of Ben Rudiak-Gould's
implementation of Alan Bawden's implementation of boxes.
In 4.2
On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 5:04 PM, Kevin S. Millikin
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, sure. I didn't mean to quibble with the idea that continuations
> are computational effects. Just wanted to point out that (I think)
> you can't macro express mutation with cal
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:20 PM, Tn X-10n
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> is it possible to convert IO Bool to Bool?
Sure. Which Bool do you want? True?
> toTrue :: IO Bool -> Bool
> toTrue x = True
Or False?
> toFalse :: IO Bool -> Bool
> toFalse x = False
Maybe that's not what yo
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:52 PM, Shawn P. Garbett
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> output :: (a -> IO b) -> [a] -> IO ()
> output f = (foldr (>>) (return ())).(map f)
Study the Prelude :)
> output :: (a -> IO b) -> [a] -> IO ()
> output = mapM_
__
s
Chris> like a hack while the CPS way feels consistant.
I guess I don't understand. Change "\ c ->" to "\ () ->". Remove the
application of every "c". Change occurrences of "c" in argument
position to "()".
--
Kevin S. Milli
dependend semantic.
And in exchange, two old problems suddenly went away: syntax errors
due to incorrect bracketing or termination/separation, and formatting
that was *not* significant (code that was formatted as if it did one
thing but actually did another).
--
Kevin S. Millikin Architecture T
