11 Feb 2001 13:36:31 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
A problem:
[...]
These problems apply to cvs' HEAD.
--
__(" Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTPCZA
QRCZAK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:20:07 +1100, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pisze:
I am pleased to announce the availability of version 0.8.1
of the interface generator C-Haskell.
Wow!
A problem: c2hs/gen/CInfo.lhs imports class
This is the first time we have advertised this service anywhere as most of our
clients/participants have been referred to us by word of mouth or are friends of the
family
who have benefited from our information.
We feel it only fair, bearing in mind the enormous profit generating potential
On 10-Feb-2001, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sent the message. It seems like
rather a pain to always wrap your existential types inside data
structures,
Yes, definitely.
You might want to consider trying this with Mercury, since Mercury
has both multiparameter type classes
I downloaded Fran and had a go at running the demos\test.hs
C:\hugs98hugs +o
__ __ __ __ ___ _
|| || || || || || ||__ Hugs 98: Based on the Haskell 98 standard
||___|| ||__|| ||__|| __||Copyright (c) 1994-1999
||---||
Marcin Kowalczyk:
Me:
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 can't be used in the same ways as
functions originally
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:37:28 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would
happen to Ord and the numeric classes with default class method
definitions that use (==) either explicitly or in pattern matching
against numeric literals?
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:37:28 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can you demonstrate a revised hierarchy without Eq? What would
happen to Ord and the numeric classes with default class method
definitions that use (==) either explicitly or in pattern matching
against numeric literals?
I
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
I'm against removing Eq from the numeric hierarchy, against making Num
instances for functions, but I would probably remove Show. I haven't
seen a sensible proposal of a replacement of the whole hierarchy.
Then we probably are in agreement.
--brian
On 11-Feb-2001, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There may be some misunderstanding here. If you are talking about type
for which equality is always undefined, then I agree with you, but that
is not what I was talking about. I was thinking about types where
equality is defined for some
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:
| Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:29:09 +1300, Tom Pledger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
|
| (x + y) + z
|
| we know from the explicit type signature (in your question that I was
| responding to) that x,y::Int and z::Double. Type inference does not
| need to
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes. Please find it
attached below. It's still a draft and rather incomplete, but please
let me know any comments, questions, or suggestions.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
At 2001-02-11 14:42, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes. Please find it
attached below. It's still a draft and rather incomplete, but please
let me know any comments, questions, or
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:42:15PM -0500, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes. Please find it
attached below. It's still a draft and rather incomplete, but please
let me know any
Dylan Thurston wrote:
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes.
I like this proposal a lot. The organization is closer to
traditional mathematical structures than the current
Prelude, but not as intimidating as
At 2001-02-11 14:42, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes. Please find it
attached below. It's still a draft and rather incomplete, but please
let me know any comments, questions, or
Thanks for the comments!
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 12:26:35AM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
I don't like the fact that there is no Powerful Integer Integer.
Reading this, it occurred to me that you could explictly declare an
instance of Powerful Integer Integer and have everything else
On 11-Feb-2001, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class (Num a) = Integral a where
div, mod :: a - a - a
divMod :: a - a - (a,a)
gcd, lcm :: a - a - a
extendedGCD :: a - a - (a,a,a)
-- Minimal definition: divMod or (div and mod)
-- and
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
There is an additional property of zero being neglected here, namely
that it is an annihilator. That is,
zero * x === zero
x * zero === zero
It follows:
zero * x === (one - one) * x === one * x - one * x
Dylan Thurston wrote:
I've started writing up a more concrete proposal for what I'd like the
Prelude to look like in terms of numeric classes. Please find it
attached below. It's still a draft and rather incomplete, but please
let me know any comments, questions, or suggestions.
This
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:56:29PM -0500, Dylan Thurston wrote:
It follows:
zero * x === (one - one) * x === one * x - one * x === x - x === zero
Heh, you've caught me sleeping. =)
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:56:29PM -0500, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I tried to write the definitions in a way
Brian Boutel writes:
:
| Having Units as types, with the idea of preventing adding Apples to
| Oranges, or Dollars to Roubles, is a venerable idea, but is not in
| widespread use in actual programming languages. Why not?
There was a pointer to some good papers on this in a previous
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:24:37PM +1300, Brian Boutel wrote:
Including laws was discussed very early in the development of the
language, but was rejected. IIRC Miranda had them. The argument against
laws was that their presence might mislead users into the assumption
that they did hold, yet
At 2001-02-11 21:18, Tom Pledger wrote:
The main complication is that the type system needs to deal with
integer exponents of dimensions, if it's to do the job well.
Very occasionally non-integer or 'fractal' exponents of dimensions are
useful. For instance, geographic coastlines can be
At 2001-02-11 21:18, Tom Pledger wrote:
The main complication is that the type system needs to deal with
integer exponents of dimensions, if it's to do the job well.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:16:02PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Very occasionally non-integer or 'fractal' exponents of
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:24:37 +1300, Brian Boutel [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
class (Additive a) = Num a where
(*) :: a - a - a
one :: a
fromInteger :: Integer - a
-- Minimal definition: (*), one
fromInteger 0 = zero
fromInteger n | n 0
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:27:53 -0500, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Reading this, it occurred to me that you could explictly declare an
instance of Powerful Integer Integer and have everything else work.
No, because it overlaps with Powerful a Integer (the constraint on a
doesn't matter
27 matches
Mail list logo
