"T.J. Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to write a program (in C) that calls a
function that is implemented in Haskell.
...
The problem I'm seeing is that depending
on the size of the buffer, the program segmentation
faults. I don't see any obvious reason that this is
happening
I'm getting some strange error messages when trying to compile Ralf Hinze's
lhs2TeX under GHC 4.08.1 and a pretty recent cygwin install on Windows 2000.
The strange thing is that I was able to compile these sources previously,
with the same ghc but an older cygwin. Any ideas? I've not run
That's great info, thanks. I think I'll paste this message into the
code :-)
Is there any way to detect at compilation time which scheme we should be
using? Presumably switching the JMP to use an indirection will break
GHC on older versions of HPUX.
Cheers,
Simon
Thanks for the
Dear Haskellers,
After enjoying "Tackling the Awkward Squad" (Simon
Peyton Jones), I wonder what other elements of the
squad can be tackled in a simular way? Right now I am
thinking about FixIO. This little bugger seems to show
up in a lot of code! Can we give it an operational
semantics a
I just uncountered an interesting example of (hidden) laziness - here is
a very short session with hugs (February 2000):
Prelude undefined :: String
"
Program error: {undefined}
Note the starting double quote on the line before the error! In a more
complicated context this puzzled me for a
I see. So you can transform arbitrary function of type a-b-c
to a function of type [a]-b-[c], by applying
\f x y - map (\z - f z y) x
and similarly a-b-c to a-[b]-[c]. But then there are two ways of
transforming a-b-c to [a]-[b]-[[c]
There should be no transformation to type
FREE Chat with a CPA on your tax questions, wondering what 8a on your 1040
means. Our CPAs will answer your questions FREE. Need a CPA in your area?
Search our 450,000 CPA database by city, state and industry.
a href="http://www.cpadirectory.com/cpadirectory/askacpa/ask_live_chat.cfm"
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:21:45 +0100 (MET), Bjorn Lisper [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
No, the transformation is a single step procedure where a term
is transformed into a typeable term (if possible) with a minimal
amount of lifting. You don't compose transformations.
So functions implicitly lifted
I am responding to my own email:) First, I didnt know
about the whole mdo thing in hugs98 jan 2001. Also
there are some papers that discuss semantics if you
search for mdo or recusive monads. Anyway, it turns
out that fixIO doenst work the way I wanted anyway. I
guess I really need to understand
I recently had an idea to allow one to create types from values. This
would have many uses in Haskell; e.g., it would be very nice to have a
type of nxn matrices for n that are not necessarily statically
determined. (It is easy to create a type of matrices and check that
the sizes are
On 09-Feb-2001, Patrik Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just uncountered an interesting example of (hidden) laziness - here is
a very short session with hugs (February 2000):
Prelude undefined :: String
"
Program error: {undefined}
Note the starting double quote on the line before the
On 09-Feb-2001, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently had an idea to allow one to create types from values. This
would have many uses in Haskell; e.g., it would be very nice to have a
type of nxn matrices for n that are not necessarily statically
determined. (It is easy to
Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply
that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an
ugly way of working around the problem.
There is nothing trivial or ugly about a definition that reflects
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
JK Now, signum and abs seem to be quite distincts beasts. Signum seem
JK to require Ord (and a generic zero...).
Signum doesn't require Ord.
signum z = z / abs z
for complex numbers.
Thank you, I know. And I ignore it. Calling "signum" the result of
Brian Boutel wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The Standard Prelude serves its purpose well and accommodates the
largest cross-section of users. Perhaps a Geek Prelude could
accommodate the few of us who do need these sorts of schenanigans.
Amen.
Aha.
And we will have The
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:48:33 -0500, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
class (Show a, Read a, Eq a) = Comfortable a
instance (Show a, Read a, Eq a) = Comfortable a
Why isn't it legal?
Because in Haskell 98 instance's head must be of the form of a type
constructor applied to type
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:05:09PM -0500, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:06:24AM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
You can put Num a in some instance's context, but you can't
put Convertible Integer a. It's because instance contexts must
constrain only type
Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:52:39 +, Jerzy Karczmarczuk pisze:
Again, a violation of the orthogonality principle. Needing division
just to define signum. And of course a completely different approach
do define the signum of integers. Or of polynomials...
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 07:19:21PM +,
Ketil Malde wrote:
Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Having a class hierarchy at all (or making any design decision)
implies compromise.
I think the argument is that we should move Eq and Show *out* of the
Num hierarchy. Less hierarchy - less compromise.
Can you demonstrate
Another Haskell - Haskell transformation tool which I always thought
would be useful (and perhaps exists?) would be a Haskell de-moduleizer.
Basically it would take a Haskell program and follow its imports and
spit out a single monolithic Haskell module. My first thought is that
this should be
On 08-Feb-2001, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:41:56PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
One point that needs to be resolved is the interaction with default methods.
Consider
class foo a where
f :: ...
f = ...
On 08-Feb-2001, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like the idea of treating the case "no explicit definitions
were given because all have default definitions which are OK"
differently than "some explicit definitions were given".
I don't really like it that much
On 09-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrik Jansson wrote:
The fact that equality can be trivially defined as bottom does not imply
that it should be a superclass of Num, it only explains that there is an
ugly way of working around the problem.
...
There is nothing
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:09:59 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would happen to
Ord, and the numeric classes that require Eq because they need signum?
signum doesn't require Eq. You can use signum without having Eq, and
you can
24 matches
Mail list logo
