We have been requested to insert the following email address, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
in the Verba Volant Newsletter database. Through this daily service you will receive a
quotation, selected from amongst the most celebrated philosophers, writers and poets
of all time and translated into many lan
"Andre W B Furtado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is is possible to declare a generic type without using "data" or "newtype"?
> For example, I woud like that "pair" is a type synonym for "(t,t)" where t
> is a generic type, but just saying:
>
> > type pair = (t,t)
>
> won't work: i get a parse
Is is possible to declare a generic type without using "data" or "newtype"?
For example, I woud like that "pair" is a type synonym for "(t,t)" where t
is a generic type, but just saying:
> type pair = (t,t)
won't work: i get a parse error.
Thanks,
-- Andre
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I used graphs in haskell, but I don't think you'll get anywhere the kind of
efficiency of a language like C++ where you have exact control over
operations and structures
There is the graph code in "functional algorithms" book
Al
Hi everybody,
I would like to ask you, if you do not know any graph library for
haskell. I would like to use haskell for prototyping some of
algorithms on graphs and finite state automata/transducers. In fact
what I'm looking for is a good (efficient and easy readable) data type
definition for l
Don't miss your chance to submit a paper to ICFP02.
It'll be fun!Simon PJ
ICFP 2002
International Conference on Functional Programming
October 4-6, 2002, Pittsburgh, USA
Final call for papers
--
