Jan-Willem Maessen - Sun Labs East <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are, I believe, a couple of major challenges:
>* It's easy to identify very small pieces of parallel work, but much
> harder to identify large, yet finite, pieces of work. Only the
> latter are really worth paral
Hello,
I copied this example exactly from the page
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/daan/download/parsec/parsec.html
-begin-
module Parser where
import Data.Char
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec.Char
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec.Token
price
On 2004 July 26 Monday 13:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to Enderton, one of the ways to define an ordered pair (a,b)
> is {{a},{a,b}}. A relation is defined as a set of ordered-pairs. A
> map, of course, is a single-valued relation.
The motivation for defining ordered pairs that way i
Ketil Malde wrote:
I'm sure somebody, somewhere, is working on speculative execution of
Haskell code.
I think we both graduated (myself from MIT, Robert Ennals from
Cambridge; I'm building compilers for supercomputers at Sun). If
anyone else is working seriously on speculative evaluation of Ha
This would be a great idea for something to put on the wiki,
a page for each error message produced by the various compilers and a
more in depth description of what it means and some ideas on how to
track down the problem.
John
--
John Meacham - ârepetae.netâjohnâ
_
Hello,
I have a question that may pertain to type theory.
According to Enderton, one of the ways to define an ordered pair (a,b)
is {{a},{a,b}}. A relation is defined as a set of ordered-pairs. A
map, of course, is a single-valued relation.
Given all that, suppose I have a "FiniteMap Int Strin
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Stu White wrote:
> As part of a project, I'm trying to construct a data type that can
> represent three values as a 'triple' (as opposed to a 'tuple'), and then
> make a function so that I can sort these values into ascending ord er.
Since sorting requires equal types of the
On 2004-07-26 at 18:10BST =?iso-8859-1?q?Stu=20White?= wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm not especially experienced in using haskell, and I could use some help.
>
> As part of a project, I'm trying to construct a data type
> that can represent three values as a 'triple' (as opposed
> to a 'tuple'),
you coul
Hi
I'm not especially experienced in using haskell, and I could use some help.
As part of a project, I'm trying to construct a data type that can represent three values as a 'triple' (as opposed to a 'tuple'), and then make a function so that I can sort these values into ascending order.
I'm
MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I understand it haskells lazy evaluation resembles dataflow
> computation - IE values are computed on demand.
>
> This problem has already been solved for hardware, you end up with
> what is termed a super-scalar architecture.
>
> Instructions
Thanks for the tip,
I solved to problem by making MinimaxState a subclass of Ord, thereby
removing the utility method entirely. It makes far more sense this way
as well.
-Arjun
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mai
As far as I understand it haskells lazy evaluation resembles
dataflow computation - IE values are computed on demand.
This problem has already been solved for hardware, you end up
with what is termed a super-scalar architecture.
Instructions read from memory fill a re-order buffer. As computatio
Jon Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> factor c constant overhead,
> ^^
> What makes you think the overhead is constant?
(Referring to the overhead introduced by boxing and such, not
parallelizing. Sorry if that wasn't clear)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it i
Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One would expect a lazy and pure language
Not lazy! See below.
> to be excellent for parallelization, since the programmer is generally
> removed from the actual flow of execution anyway. At some point (for
MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well I have to say the dataflow style of lazy programming made me think
> Haskell would be ideal for multi-processor use (and now HyperThreading
> is common most PCs have more than one processor from the code's point
> of view)...
> I was disappointed
>Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that there was some overhead to
>making FFI (even safe/unsafe)
You are not wrong... so it would only be worth it if you could
execute a whole bunch of C at the same time. But it is possible...
Consider: Use a monad to sequence vector operations on the Vector
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 10:58, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> In the absence of such a standard, the best that can be done is to
> abstract vectorisation by word size and number of words, and supply
> a software implementation of all vector ops to use if the hardware
> does not support certain primitives.
Well I have to say the dataflow style of lazy programming made me think
Haskell would be ideal for multi-processor use (and now HyperThreading
is common most PCs have more than one processor from the code's point
of view)...
I was disappointed to find GHC only uses one thread, and therefore will
o
On 26/07/2004, at 10:49 AM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
... though it would be nice to be able to define
a + b :: (Float, Float, Float, Float) -> (Float, Float, Float, Float)
-> (Float, Float, Float, Float)
and expect it to go via SSE..
I believe it would be possible to do this with "associated types":
Arjun Guha wrote:
AlphaBeta.hs:1:
Ambiguous type variable `v' in the top-level constraint:
`Ord v' arising from use of `maxValue' at AlphaBeta.hs:12
Another person had a similar problem just the other week.. The error
messages are different, but the problem is the same.
Read the messa
Hi,
I'm new to Haskell and am getting this error:
AlphaBeta.hs:1:
Ambiguous type variable `v' in the top-level constraint:
`Ord v' arising from use of `maxValue' at AlphaBeta.hs:12
in the following code:
module AlphaBeta where
-- Game states are instances of MinimaxState
class MinimaxSta
21 matches
Mail list logo
