The ftp directory for brisk at ftp.cs.bris.ac.uk is /functional/brisk, not
/pub/functional/brisk.
Sorry, and thanks to Kent Karlsson for pointing this out.
Ian[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tel: 0272 303334
The following functions are written in my strict, weakly typed language Navel.
They enable the pure functional representation of queue disciplined structures:
def qupdate key value rest =
lam k v.(if k=key
then value:(qupdate key value rest)
else
l
In view of the recent suggestion of Philip Wadler re: Recursive type synonyms
>The suggestion is:
>
> Remove the restriction that type synonym
> declarations must not be recursive.
>
>In other words, one could write things like
>
> type Stream a = (a, Stream a)
>
>which is e
jl writes:
> I feel the need to be inflamatory:
>
> I believe n+k should go.
Again, I agree completely. Let's get rid of this horrible wart
once and for all. It's a special case that makes the language
more difficult to explain and implement. I've hardly seen any
programs using it so I don
>It sounds to me as if the problem is with negative numbers.
>So, one more time ... What about the *natural* numbers?
>Doesn't anyone else program with these? (Maybe just occasionally? :-)
The problem is only partly to do with naturals. Having these would
certainly improve matters but I suspe
John L writes:
> When I have tried to talk to individuals about natural number induction
> using (n+k) patterns, then the problems start. Because they are so
> unlike the form of patterns they have become used to they find all
> sorts of difficulties. What if n is negative. Ah yes, well it can't
I feel the need to be inflamatory:
I believe n+k should go.
There are lots of good reasons why they should go, of course. The question
is: are there any good reasons why they should stay? My understanding is
that the only reason they are advocated is that they make teaching
induction easier.
I hope that Haskell 1.3 will clean up the report, and maybe even the language,
and not just add features. Recent work at Bristol has raised the following
points; I apologise for any which are well known already.
o The layout rule that says that an implicit block can be terminated by the
This is to announce version 0.0 of `brisk', the Bristol Haskell System. At
present, it is just a syntax checker, but is being made available because:
o It parses precisely the grammar in the Haskell report.
o It is an example of a large practical parser written in Haskell.
o It comes wi
