Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>
> Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:27:55 -0600, Matt Harden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > I also wonder: should one be allowed to create new superclasses of an
> > existing class without updating the original class's definition?
>
> It would not buy anything. You could
Yes, students must cross the bridge. But the name 'return' may
make it more difficult than necessary to cross the bridge. I
conjecture that the students of our French friend are just the
tip of the iceberg.
All functional programmers have problems selling our ware to
such people. Haskell cou
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>When a C programmer thinks about the
>'return' type of a C function, he thinks about the value-return half
>of a return statement's denotation. The other half, the modified store,
>remains entirely implicit as far as types are concerned.
Just because the type system
Matthias,
My apologies for being deliberately obtuse. Of course, I understood
what you were saying, but my point is this: The name of the monadic
"return" combinator is perfectly sensible to anyone who understands
the continuation semantics of imperative languages. While it shouldn't
be necess
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:53:13 -0700 (MST)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 16-Feb-2001 Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Be
On 16-Feb-2001 Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Because imperative languages have named one half of the denotation (the
> value return) and not all of it for a long long long time. It's too late
> for Haskell to change that. -- Matthias
Well now, if I am to understand what a return statement in C
On 16-Feb-2001 Matthias Felleisen wrote:
|
| The problem is Haskell, not your student.
|
| Haskell undermines the meaning of 'return', which has the same meaning in
| C, C++, Java, and who knows whatelse. These languages use 'return' to
| refer to one part of the denotation of a function retur
Because C was first and you don't have the power to change them.
-- Matthias
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Why should we change and not C?
Erik
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Skibinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jerzy Karczmarczuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Just for your fun and horror
>
>
> On Fr
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>> literal "5" gets mapped to (fromPositiveInteger 5)
>> literal "-9" gets mapped to (fromNonZeroInteger -9)
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:42:17PM +, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Note that when a discussed generic Prelude replaceme
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:56:20 -0800, William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> literal "5" gets mapped to (fromPositiveInteger 5)
> literal "-9" gets mapped to (fromNonZeroInteger -9)
Note that when a discussed generic Prelude replacement
framework is done, and ghc's rules are c
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:14:24 -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> [Incidentally, if this is nhc's behaviour, it's not H98.
> The Report (tries to) stress that you get the "fromInt from the actual
> standard Prelude" regardless of what is in scope. That's why I'm not
> going to mak
> `return' in Haskell vs `return' in C,...
Unless you're one of Asimov's technicians of eternity, it is a bit
difficult to change the history of programming languages, and assuming
that the students pay for the opportunity to learn, you can't really
fire them either.. but I agree with Mathias' s
I always liked unit rather than return.
Dominic.
-
21st century air travel http://www.britishairways.com
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
The problem is Haskell, not your student.
Haskell undermines the meaning of 'return', which has the same meaning in
C, C++, Java, and who knows whatelse. These languages use 'return' to
refer to one part of the denotation of a function return (value) and
Haskell uses 'return' to refer to two p
| | Some while ago I modified GHC to have an extra runtime
| | flag to let you change this behaviour. The effect was
| | that 3 turns into simply (fromInt 3), and the
| | "fromInt" means "whatever fromInt is in scope".
|
| Hmmm... so how about:
|
| foo fromInt = 3
|
| Would this translat
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> [..]
>
> fm _ z [] = return z
> fm g z (a:aq) = g z a >>= \y->fm g y aq
>
> When I started correcting the exam, I thought I would jump
> out of the window. First 30 copies: The type of fm is
>
> ff -> b -> [c] -> b
>
> (with an appropriate constrai
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> My inquiry proved beyond any doubt that my students are so
> conditioned by "C", that despite the fact that we worked with
> monads for several weeks, they *cannot imagine* that
> "return z"
> may mean something different than the value of "z".
>
Perhaps I mentioned that I use Haskell to teach compilation,
since I think that functional structures are good not only
for parsers, but for a legible semantics for virtual machines,
for the code generators, etc. The main assignment was to write
a syntactic converter from a Haskell-like language
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>> literal "0" gets mapped to zero :: AdditiveMonoid t => t
>> literal "1" gets mapped to one :: MultiplicativeMonoid t => t
>> literal "5" gets mapped to (fromPositiveInteger 5)
>> literal "-9" gets mapped to (fromNonZeroInteger
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> I disagree about the reasonableness of many of your assumptions ;-)
Great! =)
On 15-Feb-2001, William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1) lists are largely untouchable
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100,
21 matches
Mail list logo
