blaat blaat wrote on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:05:45 +0200:
Hi al!
In my holliday I like to hobby a bit with haskell. For a small formalization
I wanted to try out a specification which uses infinite types. Does a
(extended) haskel compiler exist which allows infinite types?
No, it simply
bjkwak wrote:
I have downloaded and read some tutorials from
the Haskell home page, but most of them are
incomplete and I decided to buy a book or two.
Did you try http://www.isi.edu/~hdaume/htut/tutorial.ps ?
Yet Another Haskell Tutorial by Hal Daume III et al.
A tutorial for Haskell that is
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:28:32PM -0400, Abraham Egnor wrote:
What's the difference between the ghc6 packages provided by your archive
and the ones currently in Debian unstable?
You can't install the unstable packages on a stable system (too old a
libc6 for one thing). These packages are just
Sorry if this mail starts a new thread. I am not subscribed to haskell-cafe
and am new to hotmail.
Uhm, as far as the example goes. I was trying to define a small (shallow
encoding of) a reactive systems language. Because I wanted to try something
else than monads I defined the following
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 02:01:36PM +0200, blaat blaat wrote:
Sorry if this mail starts a new thread. I am not subscribed to haskell-cafe
and am new to hotmail.
Uhm, as far as the example goes. I was trying to define a small (shallow
encoding of) a reactive systems language. Because I
Christian Maeder wrote:
bjkwak wrote:
I have downloaded and read some tutorials from
the Haskell home page, but most of them are
incomplete and I decided to buy a book or two.
Did you try http://www.isi.edu/~hdaume/htut/tutorial.ps ?
Yet Another Haskell Tutorial by Hal Daume III et
Dnia ro 16. lipca 2003 14:34, Ross Paterson napisa:
type R m = m - Maybe (R m, [m])
I don't think there's an extension of Haskell with regular type
unification. It's certainly possible, but there's an equivalent in
standard Haskell:
newtype R m = MkR (m - Maybe (R m, [m]))
It will
type R m = m - Maybe (R m, [m])
I don't think there's an extension of Haskell with regular type
unification. It's certainly possible, but there's an equivalent in
standard Haskell:
newtype R m = MkR (m - Maybe (R m, [m]))
It will possibly be more convenient to break the cycle in
But I have a vague recollection of an alternative syntax, something like
[(i,j) \ i - [..], j - [1..]]
that generated a list something like
[(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(1,3),(2,2),(3,1),...]. Did I dream this, or was it
a feature of Miranda*, Gopher or Hugs many years ago?
Peter
A long time ago I
