Ashley Yakeley answers the query of Rab Lee:
>
> >hi, i'm having a bit more touble, can anyone help me
> >or give me any hints on how to do this :
> >"x 2 3 4" = ("x", [2, 3, 4])
>
> Generally we don't solve homework for people. Unless they're studying
> under Prof. Karczmarczuk, of course.
>
>
This looks like a good thread to move to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://haskell.org/mailinglist.html
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Rab Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 26 May 2001 08:48
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: (no subject)
|
|
| hi, i'm having a bit more toubl
I am going to install hmake and upgrade to ghc 5 but in the meantime I decided to use
make.
I am puzzled however. Presumably building a module that imports a module needs the .hi
file and therefore the makefile should be something like this:
Tagsv1.o : Tagsv1.hs
ghc -c Tagsv1.hs -packa
> I am going to install hmake and upgrade to ghc 5 but in the
> meantime I decided to use make.
>
> I am puzzled however. Presumably building a module that
> imports a module needs the .hi file and therefore the
> makefile should be something like this:
>
> Tagsv1.o : Tagsv1.hs
> ghc -
Simon Marlow wrote (on 28-05-01 10:17 +0100):
> It's not propaganda. The fact is if any of the standard libraries use
> the LGPL, then some people will be prevented from using them. That's
> the last thing we want, right? Now you might argue from a moral
> standpoint that the companies that the
Why is there a space leak in foo1 but not in foo2?
(I.e., in Hugs Nov '99) foo1 eats cells (and eventually runs out) where foo2
doesn't. That is, if I do (length (foo1 100)) I eventually run
out of cells but (length (foo2 100)) runs fine (every GC returns basically
the same amount
Just a very naive question, because I'm really curious. I've seen in
previous messages here discussions about type systems using this kind of
notation:
> G |- f :: all x::S . T G |- s :: S
>--
> G |- f s :: [s/x]T
I'd never seen it befor
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza wrote:
>
> Just a very naive question, because I'm really curious. I've seen in
> previous messages here discussions about type systems using this kind of
> notation:
>
> > G |- f :: all x::S . T G |- s :: S
> >
At 09:24 PM 5/28/2001 -0400, Mark Carroll wrote:
> > > G |- f :: all x::S . T G |- s :: S
> > >--
> > > G |- f s :: [s/x]T
>
>I'm far from the right person to have a go, but while we're waiting for
>someone who knows what they're talking about:
- Original Message -
From: "Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Notation question
>
> Just a very naive question, because I'm really curious. I've seen in
> previous messages here discussions about type
> > > G |- f :: all x::S . T G |- s :: S
> > >--
> > > G |- f s :: [s/x]T
>
Any more takers? I still don't have any pointers to literature where
this theorem notation is explained more fully, and
11 matches
Mail list logo