--
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:10:35 + (UTC)
From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Re: IPv6?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2004-10-08, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07 October 2004 21:43, John G
MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
[...]
I dont see why you cannot change the "implementation"
of lists without changing the "interface"... Good old lists will
behave like good old lists - just the implementation would try
and take advantage of blocking of the data wherever possible.
Perhaps a pragma to change
Tom Pledger wrote:
> Something along these lines:
>
> class List l a | l -> a where
> nil :: l
> cons :: a -> l -> l
>
> But that's not of much use, because there isn't a class method to
> recover the elements of a List. We could add more methods (corresponding
> to null, head
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Actually we merely need to add a deconstructor. Also, we can leave the
type of elements fully polymorphic. Something like this:
class List l where
nil :: l a
cons :: a -> l a -> l a
decon :: l a
-> w -- on empty
-> (a -> l a -> w)
Fergus Henderson comments the comment of Andre Pang concerning my
nasty comment addressed to Marcin Kowalczyk.
On 08-Oct-2004, Andre Pang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that Marcin wishes to prove the same point that I want to:
namely, Clean encourages use of strictness by making it easie
--- Tom Pledger wrote:
It could get more convenient, though, if we have data-constructors-as-class-members
and move the familiar list constructors into the List class. (The following might need
to be built into the compiler, because of the special [] syntax.)
--- end of quote ---
Changing the su
So, I discovered that simple continued fractions are supposed to be
spiffy lazy lists and thought I'd bang out some continued fraction code.
But then I discovered ContFrac.hs and couldn't really better it. Of
course, I went about trying to actually do things relying on their
laziness, and discovere
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 12:33:53PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> So, I discovered that simple continued fractions are supposed to be
> spiffy lazy lists and thought I'd bang out some continued fraction code.
> But then I discovered ContFrac.hs and couldn't really better it. Of
> course, I w
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 12:33:53PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> So, I discovered that simple continued fractions are supposed to be
>> spiffy lazy lists and thought I'd bang out some continued fraction code.
>> But then I discovered ContFrac.hs and couldn't really better it. Of
>> course,
