On Thursday 17 November 2005 03:44, Cale Gibbard wrote:
On 16/11/05, Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed! I always use braces and semicolons with do-notation.
You are free to do so too! Nothing requires you to use layout.
Indeed, you can freely mix the two.
I would
On 17 November 2005 00:17, Joel Reymont wrote:
The latest GHC docs mention that the -C option takes a seconds value
whereas prior docs mention microseconds. Which is it?
Also, do I pass +RTS -Cxxx or is it just -C?
It is in seconds, eg. +RTS -C0.5 for switches every half a second. I've
On 16 November 2005 17:15, Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Indeed! I always use braces and semicolons with do-notation. You
are free to do so too! Nothing requires you to use layout. Indeed,
you can freely mix the two.
I would not recommend braces and semicolons,
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
If your editor is a little smarter still, it can do the Haskell
layout without braces automatically too. The emacs mode helps with
this. Yi/hIDE should be able to do it perfectly once it's in a
generally usable state. :)
Hmm, how would your super intelligent text
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Cale Gibbard wrote:
If your editor is a little smarter still, it can do the Haskell layout
without braces automatically too. The emacs mode helps with this.
Yi/hIDE should be able to do it perfectly once it's in a generally
usable state. :)
The one I'm looking forward
Folks,
I have done a lot of experiments over the past few weeks and came to
a few interesting conclusions. First some background, then issues,
solutions and conclusions.
I wrote a test harness for a poker server that understands the
different binary packets and can send and receive them.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Are you sure it's safe to kill a thread which has already been killed?
It seems so from the docs.
Why do you fork off the killing of the threads? Why not just run them
in sequence?
Someone said that they read somewhere that killThread
On 11/17/05, Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Are you sure it's safe to kill a thread which has already been killed?
It seems so from the docs.
Why do you fork off the killing of the threads? Why not just run them
in sequence?
Maybe one of the Simons can comment on this. I distinctly remember
trying the mdo approach to kill the other thread and getting burned
by that. Don't know why I forgot to mention it.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
What I do remember is that the timeout and parIO
On 16 November 2005 17:38, Joel Reymont wrote:
I'm getting crashes like this and I cannot figure out what the
problem is. I'm launching a bunch of threads that connect to a server
via TCP and exchange packets.
I am running operations like connect and receive in a timeout
function that
I will work on the repro case over the weekend. Getting this to work
correctly is crucial to the future of Haskell, I think. Without this
working correctly there's a slim chance of Haskell being used
successfully used for high-performance networking apps.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Simon
In http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~ccshan/prepose/prepose.pdf Oleg and
I survey the approaches that others have mentioned and propose a new
technique that is particularly relevant in concurrent programs.
Ken
--
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
If
Actually, this has just become crucial for me. In my using of
hWaitForInput I missed that it blocks all other threads if no input
is available :-(. Arghh! I still need timeouts.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Regarding the behaviour of killThread, I believe the version in
This may be just funny, but...
As the Google Base went live yesterday (11/16/2005), I tried to add
the information about my HSFFIG project to the Base. As the Base
allows to define arbitrary attributes (labels) for each item, I added
the two of Web URL type: CABAL and DARCS holding urls for the
I second this motion! I rather like Simon's proposal.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Fraser Wilson wrote:
Yeah, I thought you might have tried that at some point :-)
I like http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/records.html
cheers,
Fraser.
On 11/17/05, Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this motion! I rather like Simon's proposal.On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Fraser Wilson wrote: Yeah, I
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).
I've been wanting this for ages. It's SO much better than the current
horribly broken
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more often than (.). Some people do use it more often than I
So it sounds to me that momentum is building behind Simon PJ's
proposal and that we are finally getting somewhere!
Now, when can we actually get this in GHC?
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
I've been wanting this for ages. It's SO much better than the current
horribly
Would the record system describe at
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1119
also be convertable into System Fw, GHC's existing, strongly-typeed
intermediate language. ?
On Thu, November 17, 2005 17:56, Sebastian Sylvan said:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more often than (.). Some people do use it more often than I
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
Perhaps, but I always have spaces on either side when it's function composition. Isn't there already an ambiguity?
-- I bet there's a quicker way to do this ...
module M
On Thursday 17 November 2005 11:42, Ketil Malde wrote:
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
If your editor is a little smarter still, it can do the Haskell
layout without braces automatically too. The emacs mode helps with
this. Yi/hIDE should be able to do it perfectly once it's in a
generally usable
On 2005-11-17 at 13:21EST Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more
On Thursday 17 November 2005 19:21, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really
use function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your
code? I use ($) way
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).
I've been wanting this for
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to
--- Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I didn't mention this in the other post, but why not the
other way around? Make record selection (#) or (!) (though the latter
gets in the way of array access), and leave (.) for function
composition.
Actually, the fact that (!) is the
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
On 17/11/05, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 17 November 2005 19:21, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really
use function
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a
Hi Joel,
What would your impression be of building an application in Haskell
versus Erlang from a practical point of view given your experiences
with this project and the Erlang poker server?
My feelings having developed a little with Erlang and embarking on a
Haskell project are that
On Nov 17, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Scotty Weeks wrote:
What would your impression be of building an application in Haskell
versus Erlang from a practical point of view given your experiences
with this project and the Erlang poker server?
I would have been done much faster and with far less
another thing is that for any record syntax, we would want higher order
versions of the selection, setting, and updating routines. A quick
perusal of my source code shows over half my uses of record selectors
are in a higher order fashion. (which need to be generated with DrIFT
with the current
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
...
Yes, yes, yes. I'd rather use a different operator for record
selection.
For instance the colon (:). Yes, I know it is the 'cons' operator
for a
certain concrete data type that implements stacks (so called 'lists').
However I am
Chris Kuklewicz writes:
Would the record system describe at
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1119
also be convertable into System Fw, GHC's existing, strongly-typeed
intermediate language. ?
Probably. Daan's current implementation uses MLF, which I believe is
system F implemented for
On 11/18/05, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another thing is that for any record syntax, we would want higher order
versions of the selection, setting, and updating routines. A quick
perusal of my source code shows over half my uses of record selectors
are in a higher order fashion.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:32:53AM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 11/18/05, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
map (.foo) xs
to pull all the 'foo' fields out of xs. (using made up syntax)
Well I suppose this is just a section on the selection operator?
So field labels are
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition.
I mean, how often do you really use function composition in a way
which doesn't obfuscate your code?
I just checked in two recent
39 matches
Mail list logo
