While what I want to say has implicitly been said I'd just
like to suggest that there is a simple way to put the whole
matter less cryptically.
The obvious question that just about anyone starting with
the IO monad asks is how can I write (IO a - a)? The simple
answer is, you don't have to
On the pedagogic part of this issue, I personally feel that using interact
causes concentration on the temporal logic aspects of the code. That is,
on understanding the interaction between the computer and the user as a
whole. Although the monad approach has this in it, I feel it to be more
Hi,
Haskell to me seems to be a great language with a syntax problem,
and a bad case of too many ways to do the same thing; thus every
programmer does things their own way and it's difficult to grasp
the language by looking at examples.
int fact(int x){int t=1; while(x) t*=x--;}
int
Although a number of comments in this discussion make some sense,
I personally am getting worried about the direction that it is taking.
I have been a (fairly quiet) Haskell user for some time. I like it
because of the strong connection to standard mathematical constructs,
and the dedication to
Ton, Henrick,
| The importance of Haskell is [...] the emphasis it puts on the
| manner in which the total function is decomposed. [...]
Would the picture be less gloomy if you said the emphasis I put on...
rather than the emphasis [Haskell] puts on...?
At first reading, I would have
What is Nick Name doing? Trolling?
I don't approve of people getting homework done on this emailing
list, you learn more from doing, but baiting newbies is worse.
You want to give them the idea that Haskell is complex and abtruse?
I need to define a function called safetail; it's like tail
``Algebraic Conversions'', A mathematical paper introducing
a generalisation of homomorphism of universal algebras.
In Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical
Sciences Vol 2, May 2001. (pub by Massey University New Zealand).
see also, \verb|http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwiims/rlims|
I just fluffed the To: field in the header, so my previous
message was bounced, I'm resending this ... sorry if it
turns up twice. (I also took the opportunity to make an addendum).
Yo,
Haskell Integers are not a proper subset of Haskell Floats or
Doubles. Haskell does not support real
To [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: int to float problem
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yo,
Haskell Integers are not a proper subset of Haskell Floats or
Doubles. Haskell does not support real numbers.
I'd just like to add ...
Real numbers are not implementable on a digital computer. This
is
I agree with what you said,
but I think you may have missed my point.
Sounds likely on both counts.
The same thing annoys me, but my work is in exact or symbolic:
-- I don't claim this is a practical example
-- I'm just saying that it is logically plausible
denominator 2 % 3 == 3
Yo,
Steffen Mazanek wrote:
I do Literate Programming this way:
At first I define a Latex environment code as verbatim
e.g. so: \newenvironment{code}{\footnotesize\verbatim}{\endverbatim\normalsize}
When I ran into the same question some time ago I tried that,
but found that the \verbatim was
Hi,
Since I sent this to the haskell list in the first place,
I'd better let everyone know that it all worked out.
Hmm, there were no problems in simply doing so.
Ok, I've cut your example down a bit (just from a
minimalist tendency). The complete modified code is ...
Hi all,
Ok, I've got the Farari out of the garage, in to gear, and
even driven it slowly around the block, but every time I put
my foot down it just stalls.
I'm trying to write a non trivial gui in Haskell. At the
moment I'm using Hugs, and rapidly coming to the conclusion
that I should be
13 matches
Mail list logo
