On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, David Menendez wrote:
>
>> instance Applicative f => Applicative (Backwards f) where
>> pure = B . pure
>> f <*> x = B (unB f <**> unB x)
>
> probably should be f <*> x = B (unB x <**> unB f)
I always get that backwards.
> anyho
There has been a lot of spam on HaskellWiki. Since anonymous edits have
been switched off, a spammer tactic has been to create hundreds of
accounts to evade individual account blocks.
To combat this, I have
1. deleted all user accounts that have made no edits;
2. switched off account creation;
Hackage is about to reach the 1000 release mark, 2 years after it went
live.
That's right: in 2 years we've gone from having only a handful of
released projects, to one thousand! Well done everyone!
I did some quick visualisation of the rate of new releses, diversity of
packages, and community g
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, David Menendez wrote:
instance Applicative f => Applicative (Backwards f) where
pure = B . pure
f <*> x = B (unB f <**> unB x)
probably should be f <*> x = B (unB x <**> unB f)
anyhow, this should be part of Control.Applicative.
This may be terminological confusio
G'day all.
Quoting Max Rabkin :
Good to have a recommendation -- my future CT lecturer has a hard time
recommending anything not written by Mac Lane.
One more suggestion: "Conceptual Mathematics" by Lawvere and Schanuel is
the gentlest introduction that you're going to find.
Cheers,
Andrew B
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:41 -0500, David Menendez wrote:
>> That's correct, but I think you'd be better off defining OpApplicative
>> (or Backward, as I call it) locally and avoiding the two reverses.
>
> I'll have to look into this more; I do
On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:41 -0500, David Menendez wrote:
> That's correct, but I think you'd be better off defining OpApplicative
> (or Backward, as I call it) locally and avoiding the two reverses.
I'll have to look into this more; I don't really understand applicatives
right now, so I can't use
matti.niemenmaa+news:
> Announcing the release of Coadjute, version 0.0.1!
>
> Web site: http://iki.fi/matti.niemenmaa/coadjute/
> Hackage: http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/Coadjute
>
Here's an Arch Linux package for it,
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=232
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 21:55 +0100, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote:
>
>> I think it should admit empty, and the traversable instance should
>> traverse the first list in reverse.
>
> I fixed the latter issue so that the behavior is correct (I thi
On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 21:55 +0100, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote:
> I think it should admit empty, and the traversable instance should
> traverse the first list in reverse.
I fixed the latter issue so that the behavior is correct (I think).
I tested it like this:
> forM (next $ next $ fromList [
On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 10:44 -0800, Max Rabkin wrote:
> This traverses the list three times (reverse, init and last are each
> linear time):
> fromListEnd xs = Zipper (reverse $ init xs) (last xs) []
>
> But we only need to do it once:
> fromListEnd xs = let x:xs' = reverse xs in Zipper xs' x []
>
This traverses the list three times (reverse, init and last are each
linear time):
fromListEnd xs = Zipper (reverse $ init xs) (last xs) []
But we only need to do it once:
fromListEnd xs = let x:xs' = reverse xs in Zipper xs' x []
I don't *think* this has an effect on strictness/laziness, since b
Hi,
(I also sent this to libraries@, but without response; I'm posting here
for a wider audience.)
I'm somewhat of a beginner in Haskell, so take what I say with a grain
of salt, please.
The ListZipper implementation seems very odd to me, and #haskell seemed
to agree with me. The current package
13 matches
Mail list logo
