Hello,
thank you for the references. Looks promising. I will read
it carefully.
A nice solution I really like was found by Alastair Reid. He
proposed to me (hope it is ok to cite this) the declaration:
data Salutation = [Either Char Name]
We think it will not scale well, too, however, it is ele
Please find enclosed the Call For Papers for the 2004 Haskell Workshop,
to be held on 22 September in Snowbird, Utah, USA in association with
ICFP'04.
My apologies for multiple copies.
Best regards,
/Henrik
--
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks! Oleg.
>
> This works and it looks nice!
>
> And now, my code can be like:
>
> class FwdSig d where
> (forall a. Sig a => a -> w) -> d -> w
>
> All the types that supports such forwarding are instances of FwdSig.
>
> My Def type is:
>
> in
Thanks! Oleg.
This works and it looks nice!
And now, my code can be like:
class FwdSig d where
(forall a. Sig a => a -> w) -> d -> w
All the types that supports such forwarding are instances of FwdSig.
My Def type is:
instance FwdSig Def where
fwd f (ClassDef c) = f c
fwd f (ProtDef
> The code is currently like this:
> instance Sig Def where
> getName (DefClass c) = getName c
> getName(DefProtocol p) getName p
> getName(DefSignature s) = getName s
> getParents(DefClass c) = getParents c
> getParents(DefProtocol p) = getParents p
> blah blah blah...
>
> But this see
Hi,
I have a class:
class Sig a where
getName :: a -> Id
getParents :: a -> [TypeExp]
getMethods :: a -> [MethodDef]
getFields :: a -> [FieldDef]
and a few data structures that are instances of Sig.
They are ClassDef, ProtocolDef, SignatureDef, etc.
Now I have a type Def defined as
I was wondering if it might be a good idea to build up some list of clever
Haskell people who would be happy to do consultancy work on advanced
techniques. Something along the lines of name, location, contact
information, special expertise. I know that there are a couple of
companies out there who
Hi Christian,
(Some have already replied, but I'll say some more about some issues)
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:32:21 +0100, Christian Maeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Set.toAscList is not really necessary as it is the same as Set.toList.
Not necessarily: the lists from Set.toList will be equal for
I'm glad to see this progressing. However, it might be better to move
this thread to the libraries mailing list, which is specifically for
this purpose. Anyone out there on the Haskell list who wants to
contribute to discussion about Haskell libraries?
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/list
A few comments on the DData.Map proposal:
* nice work. I might start using it (instead of Data.FiniteMap)
just because the function names look better :-)
* argument ordering:
the existing Data.FiniteMap mostly has
f :: FiniteMap -> ... -> FiniteMap
while the proposal uses
f :: .
10 matches
Mail list logo
