Not exactly a bug, but -frules-off doesn't do exactly what I would expect --
it effectively disables specialization, whereas it would be useful (to me,
anyway) for it to disable user-defined rules while still applying rules
generated by the compiler, such as specialization rules. Since there's
Hey,
The $MAKE variable is not used in the new_bootstrap stage 2 and 3
parts of the nightly_wrk script. This causes failures at the
start of stage2 on OpenBSD (and presumably other non-gnu systems)
-- Don
P.S. I would commit it myself, but I don't have a tree on this
machine.
Here is a patch:
Hi,
you may use (f .) . g.
Wolfgang
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 02:27, CEST, Dr Mark H Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is a simple question. I am wanting to know good ways
of using ., the function composition operator, when dealing with
currying functions.
Suppose I have the following
I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new
operator as follows:
(.) = (.) . (.)
(the choice of symbol is supposed to suggest this new form of
composition with two prongs on the right). Then you can use it as
follows, for example:
f x = x * x
g a b = a + b
K. Fritz Ruehr writes:
:
| But Jerzy Karczmarczuk enlightened me as to the full generality possible
| along these lines (revealing the whole truth under the influence of at
| least one beer, as I recall). Namely, one can define a sequence of
| functions (let's use a better notation now, with
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, K. Fritz Ruehr wrote:
I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new
^^
operator as follows:
(.) = (.) . (.)
Indeed this is cute - but let me add a general comment here:
in my code, I don't define any operators at all (only
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 09:08, CEST, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
[...]
in my code, I don't define any operators at all (only functions). I do think
that self-defined operators make a programm less readable. All you get is a
A short cryptic sequence of non-alphanumeric characters.
I think, that
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 16:07, CEST, Robert Ennals wrote:
Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common operators. One
problem, I came across some weeks ago, is that it is *not* possible to
define his/her own operators (or, at least, that Lamport's LaTeX - A
Document Preparation
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
A related problem is that I cannot see a way to define a new log-like
function (as Lamport names them), i.e., a function with a name consisting of
several letters which have to be set in upright font with no spaces between
them. Examples are log, min, max, sin, cos and
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
I do think that self-defined operators make a programm less readable.
I quite like most combinators from the pretty-printer or parsing libraries!
And what's absolutely horrible (IMHO) is to allow the user
to declare arbitrary precedence and associativity for his
How about...
h a = f . g a
or...
f $ g 1 2
f :: Int - Int
f x = x*x
g :: Int - Int - Int
g a b = a + b
...
But what I really want is a function with signature Int - Int - Int.
--
Brett Letner
Galois Connections, Inc.
http://www.galois.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone:(503)626-6616
On 2003-07-17 at 09:08+0200 Johannes Waldmann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, K. Fritz Ruehr wrote:
I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new
^^
operator as follows:
(.) = (.) . (.)
Indeed this is cute - but let me add a general comment
Please apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message.
COORDINATION 2004
Preliminary Call for Papers
Sixth International Conference on
Coordination Models and Languages
24-27 February 2004
Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common operators. One problem, I
came across some weeks ago, is that it is *not* possible to define his/her own
operators (or, at least, that Lamport's LaTeX - A Document Preparation
System doesn't tell you how you can define them).
It's
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 09:08, CEST, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
A similar discussion sometimes surfaces in mathematics - where they have
user-defined operators all over the place, and especially so since LaTeX.
Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common
Hi All (again),
Sorry for the multiple posting, but I received serveral emails about this,
so I thought I'd reply to the whole list:
(1) There was temporarily a bug on my web page with the links
which prevented you from downloading the program. This
is fixed now (sorry!).
(2)
Tom Pledger wrote:
K. Fritz Ruehr writes:
:
| But Jerzy Karczmarczuk enlightened me as to the full generality possible
| along these lines (revealing the whole truth under the influence of at
| least one beer, as I recall). Namely, one can define a sequence of
| functions (let's use a
Wolfgang writes:
I think, in both cases you don't define an *operator*. LaTeX probably won't
use the correct spacing around the symbol.
A related problem is that I cannot see a way to define a new log-like
function (as Lamport names them), i.e., a function with a name consisting of
What I nice application for a multi-variadic compositional operator
mcomp [1]. Only one operator does the trick, for functions of
arbitrary number of curried arguments. And I really mean the arbitrary
number of arguments, in both functions under composition. Given
f1 x = x*x
g2 a b = a + b
g3
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:21:47PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
Why do you outrule other useful libraries (see above). In fact ($) is
quite cryptic (for a non-Haskeller).
Actually this gives me a perfect opportunity to rant a bit. :-)
($) is a wart, even for a Haskeller. It
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Someone mentioned multiplying by a scalar. I think this is a
good application, but what we need is to agree (somehow) on
the symbol used. I've used (*.) and (.*), with the dot being
on the side the scalar is on (on the
The TechNews, July 2003
Production Mini-plants in mobile containers. Worldwide Partners program
Science Network will supply to countries and developing regions the technology and necessary support for production in series of Mini-plants in mobile containers (40-foot). The Mini-plant system is
At 12:03 17/07/03 +0100, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
This is what I've turned it into to get it to work. It seems a bit clumsy;
is there a better way to write this?
test n =
case True of
_ | n == one - one
| n == two - two
| otherwise - three
At 12:03 PM +0100 7/17/03, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
I've just debugged a program that used a case expression, but where I was
trying to match on constants rather than literals. Here's a contrived
example:
module Main where
one = 1
two = 2
test n =
case n of
one - one
Hi Alistair,
| I've just debugged a program that used a case expression, but
| where I was trying to match on constants rather than literals.
| Here's a contrived example:
|
| module Main where
| one = 1
| two = 2
|
| test n =
| case n of
| one - one
| two -
Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes:
I am abhorred by the fact that adding ... :: Rational
changes the lexical meaning of a literal.
It doesn't. A literal with a decimal point always means (fromRational
(X%Y)) for some appropriate X and Y. Adding a type signature changes
the dynamic meaning of the
I've thought for a while that it would be nice to have a shorthand for `if` /
`else if` chains. For example:
if a b then less
else if a == b then equal
else greater
can be rendered with more structure as:
case () of _ | a b - less
| a == b- equal
Uhm, of to my holliday in France. But, ah, oh, the joy of programming ;-). I
thought I would humor this list by showing where the infinite types (is it?)
discussion ended. I found it quite nice and the code is short so here goes
;-)
To test: save the mail after the marker and run it in Hugs.
Oh yeah, and the person who _guesses_ what ex6 does in the supplied code
wins a chocolate bar supplied by me ;-)
Cheers, l4t3r
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Isaac Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've set up a Debian archive (apt source) for experimental Haskell
packages and backports.
Thanks to you and Ian Lynagh for doing this.
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
___
30 matches
Mail list logo
