[apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement]
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
TOOLS EUROPE '99
Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems
"OBJECTS, C
Bart Demoen wrote:
>
> Simon wrote:
>
> > CSE can also make space consumption asymptotically worse.
>
> I can understand this when garbage collection is around and because of
> CSE, some data structures don't get cleaned up; but is it also true
> without gc ?
If you don't use a rule like
|On a similar note, what does this (legal Haskell 98) definition mean?
|
| (((+) + 1) + 1) 1 = (+)
|
|That's right!
|
| (+) :: (Integral a, Num b, Num c) => a -> b -> c -> a
I was about to ask you to explain this, but in writing this email,
I've worked it out.. :-)
decl -> gendecl
Brian Boutel wrote:
>n+k patterns make sense for a type of Natural Numbers (including 0),
>but not for general Integral types.
>
>They are also dangerous because they are defined in terms of < and -,
which,
>in a user-defined type, need not obey the usual laws, e.g. you cannot
assume
>that 0 < 1
i'd like to support Ralf's opinion: n+k patterns have advantages
(when used in a certain manner) so it would be good to keep them.
personal reason: right now i'm busy giving tutorials on recursive functions
and it's really nice if you can write f(...,y+1) = ... (... y)
instead of f(...,y) = ... (
Simon wrote:
> CSE can also make space consumption asymptotically worse.
I can understand this when garbage collection is around and because of
CSE, some data structures don't get cleaned up; but is it also true
without gc ?
Bart Demoen
> What do the following definitions do:
>
>1 x + 1 = f x
>
>2 (x + 1) = f 2
>
>I don't propose to change this, because in practice it doesn't seem
>to cause much of a problem, but it seems pretty confusing. To my mind
>the culprit is clear: n+k patterns. But they are staying in H
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>i'd like to support Ralf's opinion: n+k patterns have advantages
>(when used in a certain manner) so it would be good to keep them.
>
>personal reason: right now i'm busy giving tutorials on recursive functions
>and it's really nice if you can write f(...,y+1) = ... (...
Simon writes ...
| Just to amuse you all, here's a quick Haskell 98 quiz:
|
| What do the following definitions do:
|
| 1 x + 1 = f x
|
| 2 (x + 1) = f 2
|
| 3 (x + 1) * 2 = f x
|
| 4 (x + 1) 2 = g x
|
|
| That's right!
|
| (1) partially defines (+). One could add m
In relation to the recent discussion about efficiencies
vs. reduction count, timing, etc.
Module Orthogonals has been completely revised,
enhanced and generalized:
(http://www.numeric-quest.com/haskell/Orthogonals.html)
Excerpt:
---
10 matches
Mail list logo
