Title: ·ºÎ¢ÍøÂç
haskell£¬ÄúºÃ£¡
Ê×ÏÈ£¬¸ÐлÄú¶Ô·ºÎ¢µÄ¹Ø×¢ºÍÖ§³Ö£¡
·ºÎ¢ÍøÂçÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾ÊÇÒ»¼Òרҵ´ÓÊ»¥ÁªÍøÆóÒµÓ¦Ó÷þÎñµÄ¹«Ë¾¡£¾¹ý2000-2001ÄêµÄ·¢Õ¹£¬·ºÎ¢ÍøÂçÔÚÌṩÆóÒµ»¥ÁªÍøÓ¦Ó÷þÎñ·½ÃæÒÑ»ýÀÛÁËϵÁнâ¾ö·½°¸£¬²¢Ôڳɹ¦¿Í»§»ù´¡Á˼¯³ÉÁËϵÁлùÓÚWEBµÄרҵ¹ÜÀíÈí¼þ²úÆ·¡£
È
"Julian Seward (Intl Vendor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 5.02.2
> ==
>
> We are pleased to announce a new patchlevel release of the Glasgow
> Haskell Compiler (GHC), version 5
Thanks Mark,
On Friday 11 January 2002 7:41 am, Mark P Jones wrote:
> Denotationally, the two expressions are the same.
> (In other words, they both produce the same value.)
> But the example above shows an operational difference
> in some implementation. (As far as I can tell, however,
On Friday 11 January 2002 8:46 am, D. Tweed wrote:
> Even sillier question: there's no other way of getting the optimization
> that normCorr' has over normCorr (as always on the understanding it may
> be a space leak) in Haskell?
>
> dotProd xs ys=sum(zipWith (*) xs ys)
>
> normCorr :: Floating a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 15:04, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> but most people seemed to believe that a lazy language shouldn't need
> macros or a preprocessor (despite the liberal use of both in GHC, for
> example).
I'm hoping I will not have to use any
Olaf writes:
> I faintly remember that there was once work on a Haskell specific
> preprocessor. Why was the work abandoned?
I had some ideas, which I put together in a note
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~kw217/research/paper-abstracts.html#Wansbrough99:Macros
but most people seemed to believe that
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Mark P Jones wrote:
> | If I have defined a function like this..
> | f =
> | it could be re-written..
> | f =
[snip]
> - The second will compute a value of at most
> once, then cache the result for future use. That
> could make a program run faster, but if t
