G'day all.
Quoting Antoine Latter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm a relatively new to Haskell, so I figured I needed to write a Sudoku
> solver.
Excellent! Please add it to the wiki:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Sudoku
> The key features of this solver are:
>
> * It's longer than other
Hi Neil,
It sounds a lot to me like:
* Create a visual meta-language
* Program with diagrams
* Translate to Haskell
Yes, that is true and I guess this is a standard procedure, isn't it?
The translation process is not at all different from your "Translate to
C++". The difference is the Visual
I'm a relatively new to Haskell, so I figured I needed to write a Sudoku solver.
The key features of this solver are:
* It's longer than other Haskell Sudoku solvers I've seen around
* It fails to solve many solvable puzzles
Fantastic!
link: http://panicsonic.blogspot.com/2007/04/sudoku-sol
On 4/9/07, Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
Does anyone have code that can grab a list of functions named with a
certain prefix from the current (or given) module? I want to find
functions named, say, ast_* and produce a list of tuples like
("input1", ast_input1).
I wrote some co
Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(snip)
> More curiosely, that (>>=) function. Why is the Haskell name for it
> (>>=), and why is it pronounced "bind"? Neither of these choices make a
> lot of sense to me...
(snip)
I don't know the answer, but it seems okay to me because I think of
mona
Andrew Coppin wrote:
->
"to"
<-
"from", or "drawn from" for list comprehensions.
[]
"nil"
More curiosely, that (>>=) function. Why is the Haskell name for it
(>>=), and why is it pronounced "bind"? Neither of these choices make a
lot of sense to me...
(>>=) is chosen as it seems
Dan Piponi wrote:
A more pressing question. How do you pronounce the following:
->
In both case expressions and lambdas I would not read this if it could be
decided by context and vocal dynamics (like the way most people pronounce
parenthesized arithmetic expressions), for cases "is" would wor
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >>Wait a sec... Are you trying to tell me that it is *faster* to take
> >>the source, type check it, convert it to Core, perform 25,000
> >>Core-to-Core transformations, convert Core to C, call GCC, link the
> >>result together, dy
Parsing a very close approximation to what Haskell specifies isn't that
hard. You just need some mild interaction between the parser and lexer.
Executing Haskell is more difficult, since you can't execute Haskell
without first doing type checking.
-- Lennart
On Thu, 10 May 2007, And
I cringe to post to a thread with this subject line, but no American
mathematician I know would call it "Moe-nad".
I think the US math consensus is "Mon - ad", where mon is like the
faux-jamaican "Hey, mon", or (more to the point) monoid or monomorphism.
Sometimes Dictionaries are only as g
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:20:18PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> More curiosely, that (>>=) function. Why is the Haskell name for it
> (>>=), and why is it pronounced "bind"? Neither of these choices make a
> lot of sense to me...
For the correct pronunciation of >>= see
http://www.haskell.org/
->
"to"
<-
"from", or "drawn from" for list comprehensions.
[]
"nil"
More curiosely, that (>>=) function. Why is the Haskell name for it
(>>=), and why is it pronounced "bind"? Neither of these choices make a
lot of sense to me...
In reality, if you want to talk Haskell and are
Although I hate to resort to dictionaries, curiosity got the better
of me and I find the following.
According to both Merriam Webster and the OED, monad is indeed
pronounced exactly like gonad. BUT, in the UK at least, there is
more than way to pronounce gonad, so it doesn't necessarily cl
On 5/10/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to me
that it might be pronounced like monoid (mah-nad).
Is there an official way to pronouce this word - maybe with a Scottish
accent? :)
I've always said mah-nad, mah-noyd, and
Hi
A more pressing question. How do you pronounce the following:
->
"to"
<-
"from", or "drawn from" for list comprehensions.
[]
"nil"
In reality, if you want to talk Haskell and are in person, grab a
whiteboard. If you are over IRC or email, don't worry.
Thanks
Neil
___
Hi
I'm currently in the process of attempting to write such a thing...
Good luck! Haskell needs more implementations to retain its purity and
compatibility.
> What is the value of show [] ?
That is indeed a difficult point. Since I want an interpreter so I can
step through the code interac
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:24:51PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> On the other hand, parsing Haskell input is intractably hard. Whitespace
> actually matters, which makes the program to parse Haskell horrendusly
> complex.
Do you know about the algorithm for converting Haskell source into
a wh
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:13:16PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
>
> >> Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
> >> hard!
> >
> >Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
>
> In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
> takes a Haskell syntax
A more pressing question. How do you pronounce the following:
->
<-
[]
and countless others...
I presume \, as in \a -> x, is pronounced 'lambda'.
--
Dan
On 5/10/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Weston wrote:
> I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to
> Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
> hard!
Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
takes a Haskell syntax tree and evaluates it :)
I'm currently in the process of attempting to write s
Dan Weston wrote:
I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to me
that it might be pronounced like monoid (mah-nad).
Hmm... I always assumed it was like "mon-ad". (Once I finally stopped
saying "mon-and" by mistake!) But I don't know how you're really
supposed to say it.
This reminds me of a joke (which depends on recognizing a connection
between monads,
continuations, control, and goto statements):
Q: What do you get when you cross a monad with a continuation?
A: A gonad.
(I am sure I will hear the groans right through the ethernet! :-)
-Paul
Tom Harper
Quite a lot of what people throw at lambdabot in #haskell is intended
to do type checking or type inference.
Ah, true...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 10/05/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to me
that it might be pronounced like monoid (mah-nad).
You say monoid mah-nad? I've always said mon-oyd, to rhyme with void or annoyed.
--
-David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Hahahah, it's pronounced the way you've been saying it =)
On 5/10/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to me
that it might be pronounced like monoid (mah-nad).
Is there an official way to pronouce this word - maybe with a Scot
I've been pronouncing monad like gonad (moh-nad), but it occurs to me
that it might be pronounced like monoid (mah-nad).
Is there an official way to pronouce this word - maybe with a Scottish
accent? :)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@has
Hi Andrew,
> Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
> hard!
Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
takes a Haskell syntax tree and evaluates it :)
What is the value of show [] ? Remember tha
On May 10, 2007, at 12:52 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Plus, consider that people often throw extensions at lambdabot ---
do you support even simple stuff like forall in your interpreter?
Using ghc means you can use most of the ghc extensions.
Ah, yes, well, I avoid everything that isn't in Has
No, you can do the GHCi trick, converting it to Core, perform a small
number of Core-to-Core transformations, convert it to bytecode,
interpret the bytecode. Compare this to the programmer time to
implement directly executing an interpetted expression, and it starts
to get complex.
One of the
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer
than runs the final program need to have GHC installed. Presumably is
does if it's going to compile files on the fly. What about if it only
loads *.o files that are already compiled? Is GHC still required?
(Not that the answe
Hi
Wait a sec... Are you trying to tell me that it is *faster* to take the
source, type check it, convert it to Core, perform 25,000 Core-to-Core
transformations, convert Core to C, call GCC, link the result together,
dynamically load it, execute it, extract the result and confirm that it
type c
On May 10, 2007, at 12:14 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer
than runs the final program need to have GHC installed. Presumably
is does if it's going to compile files on the fly. What about if it
only loads *.o files that are already
I've crawled all over the webpage, and I can't see any documentation
anywhere to this effect, but presumably all this dynamic goodness
only works if GHC is installed, right?
Yes, it's GHC-specific.
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer than
runs the final prog
On May 10, 2007, at 11:37 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
I've crawled all over the webpage, and I can't see any
documentation anywhere to this effect, but presumably all this
dynamic goodness only works if GHC is installed, right?
Yes, it's GHC-specific.
BTW... Does lambdabot seriously take every
Regarding Lambdabot, if dynamic loading is all you're after then you'd
be better off learning how to use hs-plugins and rolling your own. It's
pretty simple. For dynamic-loading-application design ideas, I suggest
reading this Yi paper:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/papers/SC05.html
hs
Hi
> Would someone kindly explain why we need co-arbitrary in QuickCheck
> and how to define it?
To write your own 'coarbitrary', you are aiming to convert values of
your datatype into a disjoint partition of the set of all Ints. In
the end it is rather mechanical: e.g.
data Foo a = Fo
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:37:01 +0100, Joel Reymont wrote:
>I tell Cabal to build library and a test harness.
>
>How can I tell Cabal that I only want the library installed?
I haven't got a clue, but I'm very interested in what you find out.
Please make sure to inform the list if you happen to ge
Hi
The basic advantages of SC (stolen from the user manual):
* write test generators for your own types more easily?
* be sure that any counter-examples found are minimal?
* write properties using existentials as well as universals?
* establish complete coverage of a defined test-space?
* displa
I tell Cabal to build library and a test harness.
How can I tell Cabal that I only want the library installed?
Thanks, Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/lis
Joel Reymont wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jules Bean wrote:
The 'next step' is to move from testing by hand in ghci to writing
quickcheck properties / smallcheck / unit tests for the functions.
I still don't understand the difference between QC and SC. Would
someone kindly explain a
On May 10, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jules Bean wrote:
The 'next step' is to move from testing by hand in ghci to writing
quickcheck properties / smallcheck / unit tests for the functions.
I still don't understand the difference between QC and SC. Would
someone kindly explain and provide an examp
On May 10, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
Depends. Did you leave out WASH intentionally?
http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~thiemann/WASH/
Nope, I forgot about it but looked at the Hemp app this morning.
Thanks, Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
__
Ryan Dickie wrote:
I've only written trivial applications and functions in haskell. But
the title of this thread got me thinking.
In an imperative language you have clear steps, states, variables to
watch, etc.
What techniques/strategies might one use for a functional language?
Well, bre
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Reymont
>
> I have finished an alpha version of my EasyLanguage [1] to C#
> compiler and need to deploy it on Amazon EC2/S3.
>
> My choice seems to boil down to HAppS [2], HOPE [3], or a
> combination of Ruby/Rails with L
There's also documentation about rewrite rules on the Haskell en GHC wikis:
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Playing_by_the_rules
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/RewriteRules
Bas
On 5/10/07, Bas van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/9/07, Jason Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'
On 5/9/07, Jason Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd love to understand these rewrite-rules a little better; could
anyone point me to where (if?) they are documented?
They are documented in the GHC User Guide:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/rewrite-rules.html
regard
What do higher-order types like lists mean when viewed through the
Curry-Howard correspondence? I've been wondering about this for a
while. The tutorials ask me to consider
id :: forall a. a -> a
(.) :: forall a b c. (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
These represent theorems in a logical calculus
47 matches
Mail list logo
