Hi,Thanks all. I learnt quite a few things:1. There was already an equivalent builtin function.2. That the best function argument order is the least surprising one.3. That I can choose my preferred function order by changing the name of the function.
4. That the most efficient way of doing
Oleg,
On 10/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
Has anyone found out how to lift bracket into another monad?
Yes, please see the thread `Re: Control.Exceptions and MonadIO'
staring at
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-April/015444.html
Hello!
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 12:27:05AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
as Udo said, it should be better to evaluate thunks just when they are
created, by using proper 'seq' calls.
While I understand why you and Udo are right, still it is difficult
for me to related this discussion to my code.
Hello Andrea,
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 1:37:55 PM, you wrote:
as Udo said, it should be better to evaluate thunks just when they are
created, by using proper 'seq' calls.
While I understand why you and Udo are right, still it is difficult
for me to related this discussion to my code. So I
Look in http://darcs.augustsson.net/Darcs/, it's in the CReal
repository.
-- Lennart
On Oct 20, 2006, at 06:19 , Henning Thielemann wrote:
On
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ExactRealArithmetic
there is a module by David Lester mentioned, with a link to
Hello Bullat,
first of all, thanks for your lengthy and clear explanation.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 04:08:49PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
f a b = let x = a*b
y = a+b
in x `seq` y `seq` (x,y)
this f definition will not evaluate x and y automatically. BUT its
returned
Andrea Rossato wrote:
Now, the state will not be entirely consumed/evaluated by the user,
and so it will not become garbage. Am I right?
No. The state cannot become garbage, because there is still a reference
to it. As long as runStateT has not returned, any part of the state can
still be
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq? Should
we not always have
x `deepSeq` y == rnf x `seq` y
?
Maybe there's a distinction I'm
Hello Andrea,
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 6:06:24 PM, you wrote:
f a b = let x = a*b
y = a+b
in x `seq` y `seq` (x,y)
this f definition will not evaluate x and y automatically. BUT its
returned value is not (x,y). its returned value is x `seq` y `seq` (x,y)
and when
Hello Udo,
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 6:41:24 PM, you wrote:
Now, the state will not be entirely consumed/evaluated by the user,
and so it will not become garbage. Am I right?
No. The state cannot become garbage, because there is still a reference
to it. As long as runStateT has not
On 22/10/06, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq? Should
we not always have
x `deepSeq` y ==
Interesting, I hadn't thought of the SYB approach. I still need to get
through those papers. Actually, I wonder if this idea would help with
something else I was looking into. It seems like it might occasionally
be useful to have a monad that is the identity, except that it forces
evaluation as
12 matches
Mail list logo
