On Thursday 05 March 2009 11:48:33 pm Jonathan Cast wrote:
> > That is, for any program context C[] such that C[f1] is well-typed,
> > the program C[f2] must too be well-typed, and if one can observe the
> > result of C[f1] and of C[f2], the two observations must be identical.
>
> Every time? For
What about AString or AnyString?
> -Original Message-
> From: haskell-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-boun...@haskell.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Kuklewicz
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:17 PM
> To: Matthew Pocock
> Cc: haskell@haskell.org
> Subject: Re: [Haskell] string type class
>
Matthew Pocock wrote:
It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy
datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use
matters for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps this is a
good time for someone to propose a stringy class?
Not likely.
I
Sean Leather schrieb:
Like this?
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/ListLike
Indeed, a class StringLike is included there as well.
Why not take or improve that one?
Till
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://w
On 2009 Mar 6, at 12:24, David Menendez wrote:
How about CharSequence?
I'd be tempted on first sight to assume that's related to Data.Seq.
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu
elect
On 2009 Mar 6, at 11:13, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 13:33 schrieb Matthew Pocock:
It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy
datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use
matters
for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Pe
> I'd be more interested in a kitchen-sink "List" class. ByteString,
> ByteString.Lazy, Text, [a], and the pending Text.Lazy all support the basic
> operations of lists of a particular type. It'd be a fairly huge dictionary
> by the current API design of those however. Its just a reiteration of the
FULLY-FUNDED DOCTORAL STUDENTSHIPS IN
DEPENDENTLY-TYPED PROGRAMMING
AT OXFORD AND STRATHCLYDE
A new EPSRC-funded project on Reusability and Dependent Types
has just started, as a collaboration between the Functional
Programming Laboratory at the University of Nottingham (Thorsten
Altenkirch), the
2009/3/6 David Menendez :
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
> wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 17:31 schrieben Sie:
>>> What name would you suggest?
>>
>> If we wouldn’t have to care about compatibility, I would name the class
>> String
>> and drop the type alias String.
>>
>>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 17:31 schrieben Sie:
>> What name would you suggest?
>
> If we wouldn’t have to care about compatibility, I would name the class String
> and drop the type alias String.
>
> It’s hard to come up with a good name si
Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 17:31 schrieben Sie:
> What name would you suggest?
If we wouldn’t have to care about compatibility, I would name the class String
and drop the type alias String.
It’s hard to come up with a good name since String is already taken. However,
things like StringLike, Strin
I'd be more interested in a kitchen-sink "List" class. ByteString,
ByteString.Lazy, Text, [a], and the pending Text.Lazy all support the basic
operations of lists of a particular type. It'd be a fairly huge dictionary
by the current API design of those however. Its just a reiteration of the
classic
2009/3/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch :
> Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 13:33 schrieb Matthew Pocock:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy
>> datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use matters
>> for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps
Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 13:33 schrieb Matthew Pocock:
> Hi,
>
> It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy
> datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use matters
> for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps this is a good time
> for someone
Hi,
It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy datatype.
For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use matters for
performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps this is a good time for
someone to propose a stringy class?
Matthew
__
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 20:11 -0800, o...@okmij.org wrote:
>
> Before one invokes an equational theory or says that both these
> expressions are just integer subtraction, let me clarify the
> question: are f1 and f2 at least weakly observationally equivalent?
> That is, for any program
2009/3/6 :
>
> As Amr Sabry aptly observed more than a decade ago discussions of
> purity and referential transparency usually lead to confusion and
> disagreement. His JFP paper provided the needed rigor and argued that
> Haskell even _with regular file (stream) IO_ is pure. As was shown
> yester
17 matches
Mail list logo
