most probably yes. I had the exact same question for:
module Factors
where
import Prelude
divides x y = (mod x y == 0)
factors x = filter (divides x) [1..x]
nonTrivialFactors x = filter (\y - y /= 1 y /= x)
[1..x]
isEmpty [] = True
isEmpty _ = False
-- isPrime = isEmpty .
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps there is a chance for cooperation?
That would be a pleasure for me. I must stress that my knowledge of
Haskell is purely theoretical, the only thing I ever programmed *with*
Haskell was a small automata package. I have however good knowledge of
Hi,
probably somebody else has already come up with something better, but still...
I surmise that you have two kinds of infix-operators,
1. dot-like operators, made up entirely of symbols (^!$%/\,.:;#+-~* ...)
2. LaTeX-command-like operators, starting with a backslash and then followed
by a
Any ideas on how much work needs to be done for using Haskell on PPC
Windows Mobile platform?
It would be interesting to use PPC as:
1) Haskell learning tool, so small code snipets could be entered and
run directly on hand-held (REPL). How hard is it to port Hugs to PPC
for this? Do any other
Hi,
If I was doing a Haskell port to PPC Windows Mobile, I'd start with
Yhc. If you port a small, portably written runtime (Yhi) in C, then
you get everything else for free.
There was some talk of a palm port of Yhi, and the only issues that
came up were:
* GMP is a dependancy, so you'll need
I am sorry for confusion that abreviation PPC may cause in the text of
my message. In this context I used 'PPC' to refer to Pocket PC and
nothing else.
Sorry again.
On 3/31/06, Dmitri O.Kondratiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any ideas on how much work needs to be done for using Haskell on PPC
I developed some code in Hugs, but now am moving to GHC. I had used
Hugs because I wanted to use the Trex module (extensible records), but
this has not been as important as I had thought it would be.
My modules run fine in Hugs, but I get an error message when I try to
run my module in GHC.
type SOA= Rec (properties :: PropList, time :: Time,
world :: World)
This type definition does not make use of standard Haskell records, I
suspect this is making use of Trex, although I don't know any of Trex.
I would have expected standard Haskell to look like:
Hello there.
Being an emacs-addicted person, I'm using haskell-mode for editing haskell code.
But its default indentation rule doesn't seem to be correct.
I mean when i type something like the code below, i've got the
following indentation:
doSomeStuff a b c = do
somefunc a
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 03:09:07PM +0200, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
BTW, are you the Tomasz Zielonka of the asynchronous automata ?
Probably not, because I don't know what they are :-)
I just googled for 'asynchronous automata zielonka', and found Wieslaw
Zielonka, who was publishing papers on this
Being an emacs-addicted person, I'm using haskell-mode for editing
haskell code. But its default indentation rule doesn't seem to
be correct. I mean when i type something like the code below, i've got
the following indentation:
doSomeStuff a b c = do
somefunc a
anotherfunc
Am Freitag, 31. März 2006 15:24 schrieb Daniel Fischer:
Hi,
probably somebody else has already come up with something better, but
still...
I surmise that you have two kinds of infix-operators,
1. dot-like operators, made up entirely of symbols (^!$%/\,.:;#+-~* ...)
2. LaTeX-command-like
Great! Thanks for the revision Daniel. If you're ever in San
Francisco, please do ping me - I sure owe you lunch!
- Reto
On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Freitag, 31. März 2006 15:24 schrieb Daniel Fischer:
Hi,
probably somebody else has already come up with
Hi,
First, its useful to define referential transparency.
In Haskell, if you have a definition
f = not
Then this means that anywhere you see f, you can replace it with not.
For example
f True and not True are the same, this is referentially transparent.
Now lets define super show which takes
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Now lets define super show which takes a function, and prints its
code behind it, so:
superShow f = not
superShow g = \x - case ...
now superShow f /= superShow g, so they are no longer referentially
transparent.
OK. I'm probably being really dense today, but
Greg Buchholz wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Now lets define super show which takes a function, and prints its
code behind it, so:
superShow f = not
superShow g = \x - case ...
now superShow f /= superShow g, so they are no longer referentially
transparent.
OK. I'm probably being really
Brian Hulley wrote:
] Here is another example. Consider two functions f and g which, given the
] same inputs, always return the same outputs as each other such as:
]
] f x = x + 2
] g x = x + 1 + 1
]
] Now since f and g compute the same results for the same inputs, anywhere in
] a
17 matches
Mail list logo
