The FileManip package provides expressive functions and combinators for
searching, matching, and manipulating files.
hi Brian,
i'm a fan of find | xargs, so a portable haskell replacement unencumbered
by viral licenses would be very welcome. i have no intention to participate
in yet-another-lic
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:29 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
So if foo.hs is in test-src and Foo/Bar.hs is in src then I think you
just need:
hs-source-dirs: test-src, src
No, that's not enough, I also have to add the following lines to make
the executable compile and link:
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 09:59 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
> >> The FileManip package provides expressive functions and combinators for
> >> searching, matching, and manipulating files.
>
> hi Brian,
>
> i'm a fan of find | xargs, so a portable haskell replacement unencumbered
> by viral licenses wo
Hi
> Could we have a collective thought, and decide whether we wish to
> either kill off all compilers that don't start with a G, or could
> people at least do minimal benchmarking on Hugs? I'm not quite sure
> what the solution is, but it probably needs some discussion.
I don't think doing min
i'm a fan of find | xargs, so a portable haskell replacement unencumbered
by viral licenses would be very welcome. i have no intention to participate
in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether those
limitations of your offering are an accident or intended?
http://hack
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Denis Volk wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am trying to make a (turn-based) game in Haskell and need to pass
> around quite a bit of information, so using the State monad seems most
> appropriate. My question is, which is a better idea:
The famous "Why functional programming matte
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In bloom:
>
> Function guards are your friends! This:
>
> bloom hf sz hc = if condition
> then b
> else error "Badness"
>
> is almost always better expressed as:
>
> bloom hf sz hc
> | conditio
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 12:00 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
> >> i'm a fan of find | xargs, so a portable haskell replacement unencumbered
> >> by viral licenses would be very welcome. i have no intention to participate
> >> in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether
> >> tho
These Haskell lists seems to have a problem of having to many elitist
pricks on it admittedly I am probably in this category as well so I will
help you guys and by eliminating one prick and remove myself from the
list good luck with the rest of them
Troy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL P
> no need to get all touchy-feely about this.
> > Perl is popular so it must have some merit.
> So is Crack. I still won't smoke it, though.
> > I don't subscribe to the
> > flawed reasoning that Perl Hackers just don't know any better or that
> > they are dumb, or intellectual inferior
Hi
> no, i browsed the license file before asking my question (no non-restrictive
> license needs to be longer than a page). if i wanted to use that library for
> anything i want to distribute, my only chance to avoid the source
re-distribution
> and advertising clauses would be dynamic linking
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the comments, it really helps to have someone else's
opinion on my code. I'll be applying what you've said as soon as I
get a chance and I'm sure I'll have some more questions then. I'll
certainly look more closely at the Set interface and try and duplicate
all the parts wh
On May 2, 2007, at 7:00 , Claus Reinke wrote:
my question. similarly for the unix dependency - it could be
inherent in the
design, or an accident of the author's current platform.
The Haskell libraries don't currently provide a platform-independent
way to do most file tests. I discovered
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:08:41 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
[..]
>IMO we shouldn't allow both a library and an exe in the same package.
>I think I argued against this originally, and my understanding is that
>doing this is deprecated, although perhaps not visibly enough.
>Whenever the question of w
Hello Neil,
Wednesday, May 2, 2007, 2:48:16 PM, you wrote:
> the "right answer" always, then I think its a much nicer choice. For
> the particular case of ByteString, type ByteString=String means you
> roughly import Data.List - not that much additional work or
> maintenance.
then Binary library
Claus Reinke wrote:
i have no intention to participate
in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether
those limitations of your offering are an accident or intended?
I didn't use the LGPL by accident. However, I might be amenable to
persuasion, perhaps more so if you
Claus Reinke wrote:
if i wanted to use that library
for
anything i want to distribute, my only chance to avoid the source
re-distribution
and advertising clauses would be dynamic linking
I believe that the magical protective properties of dynamic linking
amount to no more than folklore. So
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I like the strong static type system of Haskell for various
| reasons. One reason is, that it makes easier to understand new
| code. I.e. when I read code I type ':t foo' in ghci/hugs from
| time to time, to check my own idea of the type signature, if it
| is not inclu
i have no intention to participate
in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether
those limitations of your offering are an accident or intended?
I didn't use the LGPL by accident. However, I might be amenable to
persuasion, perhaps more so if you climb down from that t
I think Simon is right, and not just from a Haskell point of view.
Allowing a package to contain a both a library and an executable
makes the behavior of the package system less obvious. That's not to
say that it can't behave "correctly", but that it can't behave both
"correctly" and in
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
concerning the problem of getting at the types of local definitions:
> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> The principal difficulties here are to do with "what do we want"
> rather the implementation challenges.
>
> > 1. Should the compiler print the type of eve
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 13:58 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
> So, you are saying that I should split my library and its test app(s)
> into separate packages? That would also mean that I have to install the
> library before compiling and running the tests, right?
No, I don't think that's very practi
On 2 May 2007 16:16:57 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* It would be nice if this worked inside the do-notation, too:
do x :: Ordering
x <- m
(This is curently a syntax error.)
I think the following works with -fglasgow-exts:
do (x :: Ordering) <- m
--
-David Ho
>
> > * It would be nice if this worked inside the do-notation, too:
> >
> > do x :: Ordering
> > x <- m
> >
> > (This is curently a syntax error.)
>
> I think the following works with -fglasgow-exts:
>
> do (x :: Ordering) <- m
I know, but it is not as nice!
;-)
Wolfram
I'd love to post an ANN: Chicago Haskell user group, but i want to
make sure there's more than one of me.
-johnnn
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
concerning the problem of getting at the types of local definitions:
> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> The principal difficulties here are to do with "what do we want"
> rather the implementation challenges.
>
> > 1. Should the com
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:16:57PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now the compiler gives you wonderful error messages
> ``cannot match type `x y z' against Ordering'' ---
> so you replace ``Ordering'' with ``x y z''.
You could just use a rigid type variable:
foo :: a
foo = ...
> (What is th
G'day all.
Quoting "Michael T. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ummm... Udo? Just what the fuck did you hope to accomplish with this
> kind of talk?
Guys, could we keep it civil on the list, please?
And for the record:
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/12/advocacy.html
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
ajb:
> G'day all.
>
> Quoting "Michael T. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Ummm... Udo? Just what the fuck did you hope to accomplish with this
> > kind of talk?
>
> Guys, could we keep it civil on the list, please?
>
> And for the record:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/12/advocacy.
G'day all.
Quoting Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why replacing the almost-function 'if' by a special syntactic construct?
In a sense, this is entirely stylistic. One works just as well as
the other.
But I think it's superior in this case (obviously not all cases) because
this is at
30 matches
Mail list logo
