On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:32:07 +0100
Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 07:29:21 you wrote:
> > So I already use Chamo for my daily work (development, edition of text
> > files). What's missing now is access to more information like location of
> > definitions, compl
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:38:55 +0100
Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:21AM +0200, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > So I already use Chamo for my daily work (development, edition of text
> > files). What's missing now is access to more information like location of
>
We've set up a mailing list to continue discussion of bitstring. It's
not just for developers though, if you'd like to ask user-oriented
questions too we'd be glad to help.
http://groups.google.com/group/bitstring
http://code.google.com/p/bitstring/
The
DooMeeR wrote:
What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing a fork to a spoon?
From Church's thesis, one can easily answer this question: they are
equivalent.
The reduction is quite easy. A fork can be reduced to a spoon using a
fire, an anvil and a hammer, and a spoon can be reduced
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:42:43PM +0200, Luc Maranget wrote:
> /usr/bin/open (?)
...which exists on Mac OS X.
Mark
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inri
>
> I am trying to run the source code from MATIAS GIOVANNINI's wonderful article
> Aperiodic Tilings:
>
> http://alaska-kamtchatka.blogspot.com/2008/08/aperiodic-tilings.html
>
> but just get this error:
>
> $ ocamlopt unix.cmxa -o tiling tiling.ml
> $ ./tiling
> Couldnt get a file descript
Hello,
> Can I look at the code which does not type check without Obj.magic?
> Ideally something like if I comment out Obj.magic then I get a type
> error, and if I comment it in then the code type checks, so that I can
> identify the point of the issue? (In the context of this simplified
> exampl
I'm not sure there's confluence if you factor in the resources required
for such reduction, though.
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:47 +0200, DooMeeR wrote:
> > What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing a fork to a spoon?
>
> From Church's thesis, one can easily answer this question: they ar
Hello,
> I have been unable to cleanly specify the code below (or something
> equivalent) without resorting to Obj.magic. (In the example below,
> "Boxes.B.t" as referenced by the Validator module would ideally simply
> be "Boxes.t", and Validator would not "see" the submodules;)
Can I look at t
What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing a fork to a spoon?
From Church's thesis, one can easily answer this question: they are
equivalent.
The reduction is quite easy. A fork can be reduced to a spoon using a
fire, an anvil and a hammer, and a spoon can be reduced to a fork usin
I am trying to run the source code from MATIAS GIOVANNINI's wonderful article
Aperiodic Tilings:
http://alaska-kamtchatka.blogspot.com/2008/08/aperiodic-tilings.html
but just get this error:
$ ocamlopt unix.cmxa -o tiling tiling.ml
$ ./tiling
Couldnt get a file descriptor referring to the co
From: Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > The message is maybe not clear enough: for pattern-matching and
> > inheritance, you need an "exact" variant type, i.e. a type whose lower
> > and upper bounds are identical.
> Indeed - I would suggest that the error include s
Hello,
In the same vein as:
let rec p_even odd x =
if x = 1 then false
else x = 0 || (odd (x - 1))
let rec p_odd even x =
if x = 0 then false
else x = 1 || (even (x - 1))
...
let rec even x = p_even odd x
and odd x = p_odd even x
where I define two mutually rec
[One of my previous difficulties was alleviated by putting variance
annotations on my variables, which was not at all obvious from the
documentation, other than a vague hint that these are not automatically
inferred; I put annotation everywhere in the code below, but +'d is the
only one that ma
14 matches
Mail list logo
