Re: Gnome binding [was: Re: Licenses and Libraries]

Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > > > Frankly, I'd like it to use Corba from Haskell with ORBit > > alone rather to have to install much additional Gnome stuff I'm > > probably not using elsewhere anyway. > > I just joined the list an

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Hello! On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 09:41:22PM +0900, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > [...] > > Better make it work with Corba, which is the basement of the IPC used > > for Gnome, but not only that. For a first touch, one could use the > > standard C mapping via the GHC FFI (is that implemented in

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > Frankly, I'd like it to use Corba from Haskell with ORBit > alone rather to have to install much additional Gnome stuff I'm > probably not using elsewhere anyway. > I just joined the list and the archives seem incomplete, so apologies if this ha

RE: Licenses and Libraries

Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor) writes: > Here's a quick update on what I've been up to lately re: HDirect & > what the next release will support: > > * Java <--> Haskell (aka Lambada) support. > * automatically generate Haskell stubs from .h files & support > for working with pristine

Re: Licenses and Libraries

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, > > > > > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > > > > "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > [...] > > > > I understand that the fact that COM fixes the binary > > > > interface makes it much ea

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

> > Indeed. But if you get this far, understanding (>>=) quite trivial > > (assuming you don't have problems with higher-order functions). > Yes, it would be quite trivial. But why bother? You only need (>>=) > if you want to declare your own instance of Monad, which probably doesn't > need to

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:26:09PM +0200, George Russell wrote: > You only need (>>=) > if you want to declare your own instance of Monad, which probably doesn't > need to be in an introductory course. I agree with your second point. However, I use (>>=) for the same reason I use (.) and why I o

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:16:05AM -0700, Nick Kallen wrote: > > a <- b > > c <- f a > > > > as > > > > c <- f b > > > > In Haskell I can't. Why? b is of type IO something, whereas f expects a > > non-monadic argument. > > I don't see why this is any different from say, Pascal

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 06:23:19PM +0200, George Russell wrote: > It is indeed absolutely crucial to understand the difference between the > types "IO a" and "a" (an "IO a" is a way of obtaining an a, an "a" _is_ > an a). Also understand that in "do" expressions, "<-" represents actually > gettin

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: [snip] > Indeed. But if you get this far, understanding (>>=) quite trivial > (assuming you don't have problems with higher-order functions). Yes, it would be quite trivial. But why bother? You only need (>>=) if you want to declare your own instance of Monad, whic

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

Here's from someone who's still learning Haskell. On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 03:24:48PM +0200, George Russell wrote: > Thus all you > need to explain is "do" (which is in almost all respects identical to impure >sequencing > constructs in impure languages), and the IO typeconstructor. I had many

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: [snip] > I had many problems writing programs in the do notation until I understood > the underlying (>>=). Why? For example, in imperative languages I > can rewrite > > a <- b > c <- f a > > as > > c <- f b > > In Haskell I can't. Why

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

If all you want to do is learn to program Haskell, then I think the existing explanations of monads suffer too much from history. A few years ago we had (>>) and (>>=), but no "do" notation. Afterwards "do" was invented, making everyone's life easier. I suggest that introductions to Haskell s

RE: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

> a <- b >c <- f a > > as > > c <- f b > > In Haskell I can't. Why? b is of type IO something, whereas f expects a > non-monadic argument. I don't see why this is any different from say, Pascal, where you can't: Writeln(Readln(a)); This distinction is made clear if the

Re: Monads in plain english (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

At 8:24 AM -0500 9/1/1999, George Russell wrote: >... I suggest that >introductions to Haskell stop treating "do" as syntactic sugar for (>>) >and (>>=), and instead >treat (>>) and (>>=) as syntactic sugar for "do" (if they teach them at >all). Thus all you >need to explain is "do" (which is in

RE: Licenses and Libraries

[Lots of heat being generated in this (deceptively named) thread - hopefully I can squeeze in another one before it is all consigned to the Bit Bucket in the Sky :-) ] Here's a quick update on what I've been up to lately re: HDirect & what the next release will support: * Java <--> Haskell

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, > > > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > > > "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > [...] > > > I understand that the fact that COM fixes the binary > > > interface makes it much easier to deal with. > > > > I don't und

Re: Licenses and Libraries

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > > "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > [...] > > I understand that the fact that COM fixes the binary > > interface makes it much easier to deal with. > > I don't understand this - perhaps you could explain. For Corba you usu

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes: > "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, [...] > > There is a real danger if in an officially published paper > > someone gives the impression that H/Direct is only about > > interfacing Haskell to COM, because readers that will hear > > about H/Direct for t

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 12:03:25AM +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > [...] > > > Anyway, I am still thinking about adapting H/Direct to work > > with GNOME (www.gnome.org - the GNU answer to COM, DCOM, and > > ActiveX) when I am through with

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Hello! On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 12:03:25AM +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > [...] > Anyway, I am still thinking about adapting H/Direct to work > with GNOME (www.gnome.org - the GNU answer to COM, DCOM, and > ActiveX) when I am through with GTK+. Better make it work with Corba, which is

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On 22-Aug-1999, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many times do I have to repeat that H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM, > once again H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM! It would probably be more effective if you could list for us the non-MS non-COM platforms that H/Direct supports. Un

Re: Licenses and Libraries

"Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > First of al I want to apologize, especially to Manuel, for > the immoderate amount of emotion in my previous > message. Already forgotten. > As a scientist I find it rather frustrating that H/Direct > is associated so strongly with COM (which is very

Re: Licenses and Libraries

>> How many times do I have to repeat that H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM, >> once again H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM! > It would probably be more effective if you could list for us > the non-MS non-COM platforms that H/Direct supports. > Unless, of course, that list is empty. I was won

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On 23-Aug-1999, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > > Well, in some sense .h files are a dedicated interface language > > (and IDl is nothing more than a header file with some directional > > attributes

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On 23-Aug-1999, Mr. Laszlo Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Hudak wrote: > > > P.S. I really like the idea someone suggested of maintaining a list of > > open projects, who's working on what, etc. as in the Linux community. > > One major difference between the Linux community and the Ha

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Erik Meijer wrote: > [...] I think that this really depends in which world you live. In > Unix/Linux-land components are usually distributed as C source files. > In Windows-land you either get a DLL or a COM component with a type > library (a binary representation of its IDL description), [...] T

Re: Licenses and Libraries

"Daan Leijen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Sigbjorn Finne has done a lot of work to make sure that H/Direct can handle > any standard and dialect of IDL that is around, including > OMG/Corba IDL's. H/Direct can generate interface code to > any C library that is described with IDL (which is > nor

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Hi fellow Haskellers, First of al I want to apologize, especially to Manuel, for the immoderate amount of emotion in my previous message. It was not professional at all; email is lightly inflammable :-) As a scientist I find it rather frustrating that H/Direct is associated so strongly with CO

Re: Licenses and Libraries

"Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > In H/Direct you define the interface of some software > component in IDL (we have supported both MS-IDL and > OMG-IDL from the beginning). The H/Direct paper says (Section 2.2), We focus on the IDL used to describe COM interfaces [10], which is cl

Re: Licenses and Libraries

> the product. I really do not need any interface to Cobol or > any other exotic language language but C. This would solve > most of _my_ problems and for this I would heartily welcome > anything simpler than H/Direct - no matter whether it came > from one camp or ano

Re: Monads in plain engllish (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

felix wrote: > Everything just looks > so darn complicated - even if you are basically just doing the same thing: > CONS, APPLY, > and LAMBDA. Why CONS? APPLY and LAMBDA is all you need. :-) -- -- Lennart

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Paul Hudak wrote: > P.S. I really like the idea someone suggested of maintaining a list of > open projects, who's working on what, etc. as in the Linux community. One major difference between the Linux community and the Haskell community is that in LinuxLand the reward is the name, recognition,

Monads in plain engllish (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

-Original Message- From: Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ted Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Mark P Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 23 August 1999 14:38 Subje

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > Well, in some sense .h files are a dedicated interface language > (and IDl is nothing more than a header file with some directional > attributes). I already know C and .h format. Where can I learn IDL? -- __("

Re: Monads in plain engllish (Was: Re: Licenses and Libraries)

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, felix wrote: > >> P.S. If somebody could explain Monads in plain english it might not > >> hurt either. > > > >Someone already has: > > > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~nww/Monad.html > > > >--KW 8-) > > Yes, that text is not bad, but I think it still has a problem (one I found

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > > That's interesting, indeed. I am also close to finishing > > the first version of a tool that simplifies Haskell access > > to C libraries by extracting interface information from C > > headers

Re: Licenses and Libraries

[..] > Ted C. > > P.S. If somebody could explain Monads in plain english it might not > hurt either. Someone already has: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~nww/Monad.html --KW 8-)

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Several respondents pointed out to me my unfortunate choice of words, which implied that H/Direct is either related to MS-specific tools or MS-specific applicability. I apologize for this. But H/Direct focuses _also_ on COM, and for this a specific

Re: Licenses and Libraries

> "Daan Leijen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > Sigbjorn Finne has done a lot of work to make sure that H/Direct can handle > > any standard and dialect of IDL that is around, including > > OMG/Corba IDL's. H/Direct can generate interface code to > > any C library that is described with IDL (wh

Re: Licenses and Libraries

"Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > I can reveal a little secret (Sigbjorn is far away in the > Norwegian woods :-) namely that soon H/Direct will > directly support .h files, which means that it will even > be easier than before to get automate all the boring work > in making standard C l

Re: Licenses and Libraries

> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > > ``C -> Haskell, or Yet Another Interfacing Tool'' > > http://www.score.is.tsukuba.ac.jp/~chak/papers/Cha99b.html > > Thanks for making the paper available, I enjoyed it a lot. > Bravo! > > I fully endorse your main motivations from

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > That's interesting, indeed. I am also close to finishing > the first version of a tool that simplifies Haskell access > to C libraries by extracting interface information from C > headers. Actually, I have just completed the draft of a >

Re: Licenses and Libraries

How many times do I have to repeat that H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM, once again H/DIRECT IS NOT TIED TO MS OR COM! In H/Direct you define the interface of some software component in IDL (we have supported both MS-IDL and OMG-IDL from the beginning). The crucial point is that the componen

Re: Licenses and Libraries

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Erik Meijer wrote: > > Whatever happened to the auto-import of java classes? > > That's what I am supposed to be working on while Sigbjorn is enjoying > the fjords. We have a nasty bug having to do with the (what we thought > as) clever way of representing JNI objects in Hask

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Whatever happened to the auto-import of java classes? -Alex- On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Erik Meijer wrote: > > And, as a practical step, writing libraries seems like > > an excellent way to get involved --- especially if they're useable with > > multiple implementations. > > I can reveal a little se

Re: Licenses and Libraries

I'm not a marketing person and I don't play one on TV -- This seems like a classic case of moving from early adopter/technologist type of market to a broader/more conservative market. The biggest thing that has to be done to get Haskell accepted in the the market segment that we're discussing is

RE: Licenses and Libraries

| Getting the licensing right is an important goal, but if anyone thinks | that a more liberal license will result in prolific Haskell library | development, forget it. We need worker bees... Agreed. In fact the only reason I mentioned licensing at all in my original posting was to make the com

Re: Licenses and Libraries

Getting the licensing right is an important goal, but if anyone thinks that a more liberal license will result in prolific Haskell library development, forget it. We need worker bees... -Paul P.S. I really like the idea someone suggested of maintaining a list of open projects, who's working o

Re: Licenses and Libraries

> Whatever happened to the auto-import of java classes? That's what I am supposed to be working on while Sigbjorn is enjoying the fjords. We have a nasty bug having to do with the (what we thought as) clever way of representing JNI objects in Haskell. There is an elegant solution using implici

Re: Licenses and Libraries

> And, as a practical step, writing libraries seems like > an excellent way to get involved --- especially if they're useable with > multiple implementations. I can reveal a little secret (Sigbjorn is far away in the Norwegian woods :-) namely that soon H/Direct will directly support .h files, w