Wed, 17 May 2000 13:42:22 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
The "human" compilation detects that h and h' yield (error..)
for each argument ys.
In many cases, the programmer would like the compiler to stop
compiling N and report something like
Has anyone built any block simulators (for modeling continuous electronic
systems, like OP Amps, RC networks, etc) in Haskell?
I'm also interested in this. I am thinking of extending
Paul Hudak's Haskore system to generate and handle true audio data
(instead of, or in addition to) MIDI
Johannes Waldmann :
Has anyone built any block simulators (for modeling continuous electronic
systems, like OP Amps, RC networks, etc) in Haskell?
I'm also interested in this. I am thinking of extending
Paul Hudak's Haskore system to generate and handle true audio data
(instead of, or
Thanks for your comments.
They are to the point.
But the first email arose from the fact that someone else claimed that
the forall quantifier was used in the same way as in (say "classical")
logic.
I still claim that everything could be put in a classical logic framework,
which is then another
From: Frank Atanassow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jan Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:35 PM
Subject: Fw: more detailed explanation about forall in Haskell
Jan Brosius writes:
Why do some computer scientists have such problems with the good
logical
Sorry, if in some way I have upset you
Sincerely
Jan Brosius
From: Frank Atanassow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Frank Atanassow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:50 PM
Subject: Fw: more detailed explanation about forall in Haskell
Frank Atanassow writes:
Jan Brosius writes:
- Original Message -
From: Jan Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Carl R. Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: more detailed explanation about forall in Haskell
Thanks Carl for letting me see an ugly error that I made . SHAME on me.
the
Mike Jones asked:
| Has anyone built any block simulators (for modeling
| continuous electronic systems, like OP Amps, RC
| networks, etc) in Haskell?
Johannes Waldmann added:
| I'm also interested in this. I am thinking of
| extending Paul Hudak's Haskore system to generate and
| handle
Koen Claessen wrote:
I did not reply with *my* abvious answer: LAVA!! :-) This is
because I thought the original question was about
*continuous* systems, and Lava (and Hawk) are about
discrete/digital systems.
But if you find that the Hawk way is interesting to do these
kind of things,
OTOH, if we were to redefine all the xxxBy functions that involve
comparison, I'd vote for ((=) :: a-a-Bool) over (compare ::
a-a-Ordering) as the comparison function since (=) is often easier to
create a quick definition for. I wouldn't consider such a change until
Haskell 2, though.
I
Jan Brosius writes:
I must put this in the good way;
[forall x . alpha(x)] = alpha(x) is True
Yes, by instantiation.
If alpha(x) is TRUE then the following is true : alpha(x) = [forall x.
alpha(x)]
No, alpha(x) only asserts that some element named x satisfies alpha. It does
not
Koen Claessen wrote:
But if you find that the Hawk way is interesting to do these
kind of things, take a look at Lava as well. Lava has
recently gotten a major rewrite (no monads left!), ...
I'm interested to know the rationale behind removing the monads. My
admittedly small experience with
Jerzy,
1. Block simulators, dataflow interfacing etc...
People mentiond FRAM, but somehow I missed (improbable
that nobody fired the *obvious* keyword here): HAWK!!!
See the Haskell Home page, you find all about.
This is exactly what I have been looking at. My be problem is how to
Peter Douglass wrote:
| [Lava] I'm interested to know the rationale behind
| removing the monads.
The reason we removed the monads was that circuits with
feedback (loops) in them became very tedious to define. One
had to use monadic fixpoint operators (or "softer" variants
on them), which
Dear all,
A reminder that the deadline for papers for the HOOTS workshop is coming
up, on June 22 2000. Only a month to go!
Alan.
--
Alan Jeffrey http://fpl.cs.depaul.edu/ajeffrey/
CTI, DePaul University, 243 S. Wabash Ave, Chicago 60604, USA
--
From: Frank Atanassow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jan Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: more detailed explanation about forall in Haskell
Jan Brosius writes:
I must put this in the good way;
[forall x . alpha(x)] = alpha(x) is
Keith Wansbrough wrote:
OTOH, if we were to redefine all the xxxBy functions that involve
comparison, I'd vote for ((=) :: a-a-Bool) over (compare ::
a-a-Ordering) as the comparison function since (=) is often easier to
create a quick definition for. I wouldn't consider such a change
(+), () ... are different. Because they have classical tradition
to be applied as binary infix operations.
And gcd, min, max, lcm have not this "infix" tradition.
--
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
