Jianzhou Zhao jianz...@seas.upenn.edu writes:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
wrote:
Jianzhou Zhao jianz...@seas.upenn.edu writes:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
wrote:
Jianzhou Zhao jianz...@seas.upenn.edu
Hi,
While writing a sample program (with lablgtk2), I found a few things annoying
and thought I would ask here what you guys think.
1. Option type
It seems that there is no predefined function to test an 'a option for being
specifically None or Some _. This seems to be
Hi,
I found it weird to be forced to use match expressions in my code
for
doing that, e.g.:
* let curSelectedRow = ref None in
* let updateButtonsStatus () =
* button_remove#misc#set_sensitive
* (match !curSelectedRow with None - false | _ - true)
* in
* ...
You
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:30PM +0100, Thomas Gazagnaire wrote:
You are not forced to use match expression, you can just define :
let is_none x = match x with None - true | Some _ - false
and is_some x = not (is_none x)
and then use these functions in your code ...
Or even simpler:
let
Hi,
On 15-11-2010, Wolfgang Draxinger wdraxinger.maill...@draxit.de wrote:
Hi,
I've just read
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2002/11/64c14acb90cb14bedb2cacb73338fb15.en.html
in particular this paragraph:
| What about hyperthreading? Well, I believe it's the last convulsive
|
On 2010/11/16, at 20:27, Serge Le Huitouze wrote:
1. Option type
It seems that there is no predefined function to test an 'a option for being
specifically None or Some _.
In ocaml you can compare at any type.
So you can just write
(!curSelectedRow None)
which explains why
To get rid of many warnings, I wrapped some calls (the connect calls of
my widgets) into ignore (f x y) statements.
You can, but unfortunately $ does not have the right associativity.
# let ($) f x = f x;;
val ( $ ) : ('a - 'b) - 'a - 'b = fun
# ignore $ 1+1;;
- : unit = ()
# succ $ succ
Hello.
So I have to learn the precedence and associaticity table in section 6.7 of
OCaml's reference manual!!!
I usually redefine () operator: let ( ) f x = f x
It's ok until you don't use JoCaml which defines keyword .
Also take a look at other infix operators I use, maybe you found
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Michael Ekstrand mich...@elehack.netwrote:
Batteries provides operators for things like this. It defines the '**'
operator for function application; it's an odd name, but it has the
right associativity. As Dmitry mentioned, some override (). Batteries
also
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Serge Le Huitouze
serge.lehuito...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that there is no predefined function to test an 'a option for
being
specifically None or Some _. This seems to be confirmed by the very
existence of:
Am Montag, den 15.11.2010, 22:46 -0800 schrieb Edgar Friendly:
On 11/15/2010 09:27 AM, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
Hi,
I've just read
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2002/11/64c14acb90cb14bedb2cacb73338fb15.en.html
in particular this paragraph:
| What about
To those of you who are lazy but still curious, I just read the report, and
here are the answers to the question I had:
1. Is that project related to Basile Starynkevitch's venerable OCamlJIT ?
Yes, OcamlJIT was apparently a major inspiration for this work. The overall
design is similar, and in
On Nov 16, 2010, at 18:07 , bluestorm wrote:
To those of you who are lazy but still curious, I just read the report, and
here are the answers to the question I had:
Thanks for posting these points, should have done this in my original post...
1. Is that project related to Basile
On 11/16/10 03:51, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:30PM +0100, Thomas Gazagnaire wrote:
You are not forced to use match expression, you can just define :
let is_none x = match x with None - true | Some _ - false
and is_some x = not (is_none x)
and then use these functions
On 2010 Nov 15, at 22:46 , Edgar Friendly wrote:
It looks like high-performance computing of the near future will be built out
of many machines (message passing), each with many cores (SMP). One could
use message passing for all communication in such a system, but a hybrid
approach might
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.dewrote:
Am Montag, den 15.11.2010, 22:46 -0800 schrieb Edgar Friendly:
* As somebody mentioned implicit parallelization: Don't expect
anything from this. Even if a good compiler finds ways to
parallelize
Am Dienstag, den 16.11.2010, 22:35 +0200 schrieb Eray Ozkural:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
i...@gerd-stolpmann.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 15.11.2010, 22:46 -0800 schrieb Edgar
Friendly:
* As somebody mentioned implicit parallelization: Don't
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.dewrote:
Am Dienstag, den 16.11.2010, 22:35 +0200 schrieb Eray Ozkural:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
i...@gerd-stolpmann.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 15.11.2010, 22:46 -0800 schrieb Edgar
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:04:54 +0200
Eray Ozkural examach...@gmail.com wrote:
[readworthy text]
I'd like to point out how the big competitor to OCaml deals with it.
The GHC Haskell system has SMP parallization built in for some time,
and it does it quite well.
Wolfgang
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Wolfgang Draxinger
wdraxinger.maill...@draxit.de wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:04:54 +0200
Eray Ozkural examach...@gmail.com wrote:
[readworthy text]
I'd like to point out how the big competitor to OCaml deals with it.
The GHC Haskell system has SMP
Wolfgang wrote:
I'd like to point out how the big competitor to OCaml deals with it.
The GHC Haskell system has SMP parallization built in for some time,
and it does it quite well.
I beg to differ. Upon trying to reproduce many of the Haskell community's
results, I found that even their own
Granularity and cache complexity are the reasons why not. If you find
anything and everything that can be done in parallel and parallelize it then
you generally obtain only slowdowns. An essential trick is to exploit
locality via mutation but, of course, purely functional programming sucks at
that
With the improvements to the module system in ocaml 3.12 extending a
signature just got much much lighter. Suppose I want the signature of
the module which in every respects is like StdLabels excepted that the
String module has an extra is_prefix_of I can write:
module String : sig
include
Oh well, I'm not so surprised that the fine-grain task-parallelism with (?)
dynamic load-balancing strategy doesn't get much speedup. Doing HPC with
Haskell is a bit like using Java for writing parallel programs, you might as
well use a C-64 and Commodore BASIC. And yes, some people do use Java
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:27:14AM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
As I said even in C good results can be achieved, I've seen that, so I
know it's doable with ocaml, just a difficult kind of compiler. The
functional features would expose more concurrency.
Could you share a pointer to a paper
25 matches
Mail list logo