> Any thumb rule for using arrays? I'm expecting access to be
> O(1), it is right?
In GHC, yes.
> Need to have a set of data, and I just want to get random
> elements from that
> Set, arrays seem like a good solution... am I right?
If you're building it once and doing lots of access, then H
"Cagdas Ozgenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> class NewClass a where
> myTT :: [a]
> It seems to be a valid Haskell construct, but I do not comprehend the
> semantics of it.
Perhaps I'm entirely off base here, but members of the class needs
(relatively, you can leave it undefined, of course
Greetings.
How do I interpret the following:
class NewClass a where
myTT :: [a]
It seems to be a valid Haskell construct, but I do not comprehend the
semantics of it.
Thanks fot taking time.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:
| Thank you for this information. However, it does not
| quite satisfy my curiosity: are these purely
| functional type checkers as efficient (big-O) as
| imperative ones? And if not, why not?
I usually use the ST monad to implement these kinds of
things, which gives the same performance
> From: Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Feuer wrote:
>
> >Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
> >implementation of unification (for type checking)?
> >
> Well, if you have ever used hbc or nhc, you have used
type checkers
> containing purely functional implementations
David Feuer wrote:
>Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
>implementation of unification (for type checking)?
>
Well, if you have ever used hbc or nhc, you have used type checkers
containing purely functional implementations of unification. Purely
functional unification can be effi
> From: "Cagdas Ozgenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Greetings.
>
> In section 4.1 of Haskell Report for 98:
>
> It is indicated that (->) has kind * -> *-> * and
> t1 -> t2 is equivalent to type (->) t1 t2
>
> Does this make (->) a type constructor? Is this an
attempt to unify
> functions and dat
Greetings.
In section 4.1 of Haskell Report for 98:
It is indicated that (->) has kind * -> *-> * and
t1 -> t2 is equivalent to type (->) t1 t2
Does this make (->) a type constructor? Is this an attempt to unify
functions and data types?
Thanks
_
Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
implementation of unification (for type checking)? If
not, what makes it difficult to solve the problem in that
way?
David Feuer
This message has been brought to you by the letter alpha and the number pi.
___
