Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Monday, February 06, 2006, 4:41:50 PM, you wrote:
SM The Var class is interesting - basically the equivalent of the MArray
SM class for mutable variables. Is there a reason you couldn't use the
SM same pattern as the MArray class? MArray of Ptr works
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
I have developed a new I/O library that IMHO is so sharp that it can
eventually replace the current I/O facilities based on using Handles.
The main advantage of the new library is its strong modular design
using typeclasses.
I've taken a brief look, and I must say it's
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Haskell Weekly News: February 06, 2006
:
Oleg says, The implementation of RSA on the type level is left
for future work.
Methinks this gives a whole new meaning to type security.
:)
#g
--
Graham Klyne
For email:
Is type inferencing in Haskell essentially the same as in SML? Thanks.
---Fred Hosch
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Fred Hosch wrote:
Is type inferencing in Haskell essentially the same as in SML? Thanks.
Well, that depends on what you mean by essentially the same ;-)
Both languages are based on the same Hindley-Milner type inference
algorithm, so both suffer from the same problem that a function such as
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:13:20AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
The problem with doing this is you need a pretty beefy strictness
analyser to be able to tell whether the reference is being used
strictly, this is far beyond what GHC does (I'm impressed that jhc can
do this, but I don't think
I'll try to make it short.
I'm developping a package wich imports C functions.
the fact is that when I try to compile if I call the compiler in the
usual way, using -package and -llib it gives an undefined reference
error...
For example if I use:
$ghc -package PKGname-PKGversion -fffi -o main
On 08/02/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Hosch wrote:
Is type inferencing in Haskell essentially the same as in SML? Thanks.
Well, that depends on what you mean by essentially the same ;-)
Both languages are based on the same Hindley-Milner type inference
algorithm, so both
Cale Gibbard wrote:
On 08/02/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Hosch wrote:
Is type inferencing in Haskell essentially the same as in SML?
Thanks.
Well, that depends on what you mean by essentially the same ;-)
Both languages are based on the same Hindley-Milner type inference
Brian Hulley wrote:
f :: (forall a m. a - m a) - c - d - (m c, m d)
The above is wrong - there is no way to quantify m properly. This must be
why intersection types need to be written with after all
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
f :: (forall a m. a - m a) - c - d - (m c, m d)
The above is wrong - there is no way to quantify m properly. This
must be why intersection types need to be written with after
all
What am I saying! It's right after all, and might be
Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
f :: (forall a m. a - m a) - c - d - (m c, m d)
The above is wrong - there is no way to quantify m properly. This
must be why intersection types need to be written with after
all
What am I saying! It's right after
Hi. I want to write a little haskell program executing about 4 programs
passing data via pipes. As my python script seems to be slower than a
bash script I want to try a ghc executable now.
It should invoke different parts of a text to speech chain. This way I
have one interface then.
Talar und
On 09/02/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
f :: (forall a m. a - m a) - c - d - (m c, m d)
The above is wrong - there is no way to quantify m properly. This
must be why intersection types need to be written
14 matches
Mail list logo
