On 17-Nov-1999, Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would be easy to extend most type check/inference
> algorithms with this new feature. (Any comments on this?)
I agree. For the Mercury type checker I'd estimate that it would probably
take a good programmer who was familiar wi
> So, we are allowed to use (..) at any place in the
> context (or maybe even type), to show the compiler
> that you know "something" should be there.
HAL has this feature. HAL ressembles Mercury, but with support for
constraint solvers and with real logical variables.
Syntax is ? instead of th
Koen Claessen:
> I want to propose a modest extension to Haskell, which
> would solve a common irritating problem in programming
> in Haskell, and on-the-fly solves the practical programming
> problems occuring due to the monomorphism restriction.
I've banged into this more than once, so I have
I want to propose a modest extension to Haskell, which
would solve a common irritating problem in programming
in Haskell, and on-the-fly solves the practical programming
problems occuring due to the monomorphism restriction.
Problem Definition
==
Currently, in Haskell, when defi
In the offered positions you have to do some teaching in German. Hence I didn't
translate the advert into English. Informal inquiries may be made to me.
In our group Haskell is used as implementation language and is a subject of
research.
-
The November 1999 version of Hugs is here!
We are pleased to announce a new release of Hugs, a Haskell
interpreter and programming environment for developing cool
Haskell programs. Sources and binaries are freely available
by anonymous FTP and on the World-Wide Web. The release a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>In any case, I think it is high time that we free ourselves of an
>imperative view of arrays and functions, and the differences between
>the two.
>
You are right that too much of an imperative view *is* taken of
functional programming. M
How do you get a subtype in Haskell (or any other functional language
come to that)? I'm thinking along the lines of (pseudo-notation):
type weekday = {Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri}
type weekend = {Sat, Sun}
type day = weekend + weekday
It springs to mind that this kind of problem is pos
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>datatype weekday = mon | tue | wed | thu | fri;
>datatype weekend = sat | sun;
>datatype day = wd of weekday | we of weekend;
>
>Essentially, if you think of your subtypes as "disjoint unions", then
>we've defined day as the union of week
RESEARCH PROGRAMMING POSITION
Computational Interaction Group
Department of Computer Science
Johns Hopkins University
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~hager/CIPS
We are seekin
FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING RESEARCH POSITIONS
Yale Haskell Group
Department of Computer Science
Yale University
Are you a believer in functional languages? We are looking for
several full-time researchers to he
Sven Panne wrote:
> Tom Pledger wrote:
> > How about using qualified imports of modules?
> > [...]
> > module Test where
> > import qualified QL1
> > import QL2
> > [...]
>
> You don't even have to use a qualified import for QL1, prefixing
> the ambiguous occurrences of up/low is enough [..
12 matches
Mail list logo