Why not Linux?
Regards
Chris Saunders
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Halchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime
> To Linux? :^)
>
>
>
>
> >From
Hi.
Claus Reinke writes:
> - one would think that () simply takes its role as a unit, so that
> (),a == a == a,()
> but if we know x::() does that imply that x,a == a ?
> x could be bottom, and the equations for the unit look strict in their
> unit parameter, so probably not;
Do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
> Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > http://www.microsoft.com/net/
>
> I still have not found anything suggesting that tools needed for
> working with that (e.g. the common runtime) will be availa
On 03-Aug-2000, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not "at least" but "only". I haven't heard of plans for .NET on any
> > non-Windows platform.
>
> Then you should listen more closely! a quote from the .NET whitepaper:
>
> Microsoft .NET proactively adapts to what you
> want to
To Linux? :^)
>From: "Chris Saunders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime
>Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:24:14 -0400
>
>It seems to
This might be of interest to the compiler people on this
list. Haskell is used extensively in teaching at UNSW.
Manuel
-
Associate Professor (2 positions)
The
It seems to me that this .Net thingy is a runtime
and therefore could potentially be as portable
as anything from Java. This runtime just needs
to be ported to other operating systems similarily
to the Java runtime.
Regards
Chris Saunders
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "
I don't believe this says anything about support for other OS's. I
think the devices here are hardware, (PCs, handhelds, phones, fridge
interfaces, ...) Of course Microsoft believes that some day, very
soon, all devices will run (a version of) Windows. Hence this
statement refers to Microsoft
I agree.
Bill Halchin
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime
>Date: 3 Aug 2000 22:01:36 GMT
>
>Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > http://www.microsoft.com/net/
>
>I stil
Is there a means of formatting doubles in Haskell with the precision
flexibilty of printf? The show method seems to only print the first
few decimal places, and showGFloat in the numeric module seems to only
display a similar number
For example, in hugs...
import Numeric
x = 1.234567
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> http://www.microsoft.com/net/
I still have not found anything suggesting that tools needed for
working with that (e.g. the common runtime) will be available for
non-Windows OSes. Who will make them? Microsoft?
--
__(
> nigel> Disclaimer, as Fergus added one: I am working with Microsoft on
.NET
> nigel> implementation, but I run Windows 2000 on my G3 PowerBook and take
it
> nigel> to Microsoft with me. I'm biased on everything :-)
>
> Windows 2000 in a G3 Powerbook? I am lost here :((
No, Nigel is not
> Not "at least" but "only". I haven't heard of plans for .NET on any
> non-Windows platform.
Then you should listen more closely! a quote from the .NET whitepaper:
Microsoft .NET proactively adapts to what you
want to do, on any of your devices. This inversion
of the traditional i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl R. Witty) writes:
> "Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Fergus (and others): how about compiling a summary of the
> > relationships (a kind of dictionary of terminologies) ? In
> > particular, what is the state of the art in logic programming
> > wrt deter
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:06:54 +0200, Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> More seriously as a number of languages are being produced to run
> over .NET along with a whole slew of libraries it provides a good
> platform to target your favourite research language at (for Windows
> platforms at least
Fergus wrote:
> I guess one could argue that the costs of most other things pale
> in comparison to the costs of having lazy evaluation as the default ;-)
Of course, if you're the sort of person who likes to write "head (sort lst)"
to get the least member of a list, then lazy evaluation is incre
On 03-Aug-2000, Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I understand that point, but if doing that means that you need to
> >implement the basic things like argument passing and procedure
> >calling yourself, using your own virtual machine, rather than
> >by using the underlying runtime's argume
> "nigel" == Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
nigel> Disclaimer, as Fergus added one: I am working with Microsoft on .NET
nigel> implementation, but I run Windows 2000 on my G3 PowerBook and take it
nigel> to Microsoft with me. I'm biased on everything :-)
Windows 2000 in a G3 Powerbo
Well Erik & Fergus seem to be into a "my language/implementation" is
better than yours battle ;-) while some others are confused as to
what they're talking about. Not to prolong it, but let's see if I can
clarify a few issues (ROTW: I wrote the Mondrian -> C# bit [and other
odds'n'endz])
At 6
I would start by splitting the problem up
tupleSum :: [Int]-> (Int, Int)
tupleSum xs = (neg, pos)
where neg = ... SOME EXPRESSION INVOLVING xs
...
pos = sum [ x | x <- xs , x > 0]
> -Original Message-
> From:
Hi,
Would mind asnswring the following :
Write a Haskell function tupleSum of type
tupleSum :: [Int]-- (Int, Int)
that given a list of integers:
@separetes all negatives from the list and then add -1 to each element of this
sub-list;
@sum all elements of the list of negatives and sum
A constraint in a data type definition does not do much. It only
restricts the type of the data constructor(s), e.g. here FooType :: Foo
a => a -> FooType a.
Functions that use the data type FooType a cannot take any advantage of
the constraint.
There has been a long discussion on this issue on
> GOO is not a Microsoft invention, and nor is it part of Microsoft's
> .NET stuff. GOO is an intermediate language that was, AFAIK, invented
> by the Mondrian group. It might be described in the following paper:
>
> Erik Meijer and Koen Claessen. The Design and Implementation of
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
