On Dec 7, 2007 6:04 PM, Chris Eidhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7 dec 2007, at 23:51, Ryan Bloor wrote:
> > i am using hugs and the isDigit and anything 'is' doesn't work...
> > they must have forgot to add them in! Does GHC work with them.
>
Perhaps you need to import Data.Char?
-Brent
___
Andrew Coppin btinternet.com> writes:
[snip]
You might like to look at OpenQuark: http://labs.businessobjects.com/cal/
-- its 'GemCutter' provides a visual environment for linking together functions
written in a Haskell-like language.
I'm not sure if it would be flexible enough for you out of
On 7 dec 2007, at 23:51, Ryan Bloor wrote:
i am using hugs and the isDigit and anything 'is' doesn't work...
they must have forgot to add them in! Does GHC work with them.
Yes, it's in base. Alternatively, you could write the functions
yourself, they're not that hard.
p.s... that book looks fa
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 19:14 +, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
> > You could replace the "unlit" executable in the GHC library directory
> > with one which knows how to extract Haskell code from HTML.
>
> I want a solution so that I can write the tagsoup manual in an way
> that can actu
On 7 dec 2007, at 22:55, Ryan Bloor wrote:
hi
The thing is... it will be a simple parser really. The expressions
are already defined and we can't use parsec imports. Below is the
types I have.
I have a function that removes initial spaces from the start of a
string. A function that check
Hello,
Does the following code work for you?
-Jeff
---
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -fglasgow-exts -fallow-undecidable-instances
-fallow-overlapping-instances #-}
data Nil = Nil
data x ::: xs = x ::: xs
infixr 5 :::
data HTrue = HTrue deriving Show
data HFalse = HFalse deriving S
On 6 dec 2007, at 18:06, Ryan Bloor wrote:
Can anyone advise me on how to check whether a string contains ints,
chars, bools, etc
"2345 + 6767" shoudl give IntAdd (2345) (6767)
"2345" should give IntT 2345
You need to write a parser. There are a lot of libraries that will
help you write
oleg-7 wrote:
>
>
> In fact, that distinction is possible. The following article
>
> How to write an instance for not-a-function
> http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/typecast.html#is-function-type
>
> specifically describes a method of writing an instance which is
> selected only when t
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:49 -0500, Jeff Polakow wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> You should be able to use fundeps to do exactly what you describe
> below.
>
> Can you make a relatively small self-contained example which
> exemplifies the ugliness you see?
>
Hi Jeff, as well as a minor code explosi
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:07:01PM -0800, Ryan Ingram wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a reason why strictness is defined as
> >>
> >>> f _|_ = _|_
> >>>
> >> instead of, for example,
> >>
> >>> forall x :: Exception. f (throw x) = throw x
On Dec 7, 2007 8:39 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > compose f g = f . g
> >
> > compose' f g x = f (g x)
> >
> > Are you saying that these two exactly equivalent functions should have
> > different arity? If not, then is the arity 2 or 3?
>
> Prelude> :t let compose f g = f . g in c
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 7:57 PM, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 7:41 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
You can project the compile time numbers into runtime ones:
Yes, that works well if I know a priori what the arity of the function
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:07:01PM -0800, Ryan Ingram wrote:
Is there a reason why strictness is defined as
f _|_ = _|_
instead of, for example,
forall x :: Exception. f (throw x) = throw x
There's discussion along these lines in
http://hackage.h
Denis Bueno wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 1:50 PM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys.
Here's a fairly basic question. I have several ideas for programs that
I'd like to write. They all involve placing "units" of some kind, and
then drawing "connections" between those units. How feasible
On Dec 7, 2007 7:57 PM, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 7:41 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > You can project the compile time numbers into runtime ones:
> >
> > Yes, that works well if I know a priori what the arity of the function
> >
On Dec 7, 2007 7:41 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > You can project the compile time numbers into runtime ones:
>
> Yes, that works well if I know a priori what the arity of the function
> is. But I want to be able to have the compiler deduce the arity of the
> fu
On Dec 7, 2007, at 14:14 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
You could replace the "unlit" executable in the GHC library directory
with one which knows how to extract Haskell code from HTML.
I want a solution so that I can write the tagsoup manual in an way
that can actually be run - I'd rather not force
Neil Mitchell wrote:
...
foo = 1
\end{code}
I can then hide the trailing \end{code} with a margin-bottm: -2em.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
I haven't thought this through, but maybe you could hide the
trailing bit by :
--
Richard.
___
Ha
Luke Palmer wrote:
You can project the compile time numbers into runtime ones:
Yes, that works well if I know a priori what the arity of the function
is. But I want to be able to have the compiler deduce the arity of the
function (e.g. by applying undefined until it is no longer a function),
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want literate Haskell, but where the literate bit forming a document
> is actually HTML, not latex. Does anyone have any idea how to go about
> this?
The numeric-quest library was the first and only one that I have seen in
this style. I could o
On Dec 7, 2007 1:50 PM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> Here's a fairly basic question. I have several ideas for programs that
> I'd like to write. They all involve placing "units" of some kind, and
> then drawing "connections" between those units. How feasible is it to
> pr
Hi Brandon,
> You could replace the "unlit" executable in the GHC library directory
> with one which knows how to extract Haskell code from HTML.
I want a solution so that I can write the tagsoup manual in an way
that can actually be run - I'd rather not force any additional
dependence on a custo
On Dec 7, 2007, at 14:07 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
I want literate Haskell, but where the literate bit forming a document
is actually HTML, not latex. Does anyone have any idea how to go about
this?
You could replace the "unlit" executable in the GHC library directory
with one which knows how
Hi
I want literate Haskell, but where the literate bit forming a document
is actually HTML, not latex. Does anyone have any idea how to go about
this?
For a start, how do I persuade GHC to run the file:
C:\Documents\Uni\tagsoup>runhaskell index.html
Warning: ignoring unrecognised input `index.ht
Hi guys.
Here's a fairly basic question. I have several ideas for programs that
I'd like to write. They all involve placing "units" of some kind, and
then drawing "connections" between those units. How feasible is it to
program such a thing in Haskell? Where would you start? (Gtk2hs is the
on
On Dec 7, 2007 6:57 PM, Peter Padawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > Peter Padawitz wrote:
> >> Cause I don't see why the instantiation conflicts pointed out by
> >> others would vanish then.
> >
> > They would.
> >
> > If it's really true that there is only one possible choice
Bit Connor wrote:
Hi,
Monadius is awesome! I've made a video of me playing it and kicking
some serious ass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqFgQiPKtOI
No way! Hax!!
You edited the source code, didn't you? ;-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haske
On Dec 7, 2007 6:21 PM, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is great! Two questions:
>
> 1) I want to make sure the function arity matches the list length (as a
> runtime check). I think I can do this with an arity function using
> Data.Typeable. I came up with:
>
> arity f = a (typeOf f)
Peter Padawitz wrote:
So the fundep would solve the problem.
But, actually, it doesn't :-(
But actually, it does!
Ben Franksen's answer from yesterday compiles fine for me if I add the
missing fundep, block -> command.
Your original code compiles without error, given the fundep. Exact cod
On Dec 7, 2007 5:57 PM, Peter Padawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> type Block = [Command]
> data Command = Skip | Assign String IntE | Cond BoolE Block Block | Loop
> BoolE Block
> data IntE= IntE Int | Var String | Sub IntE IntE | Sum [IntE] | Prod
> [IntE]
> data BoolE = BoolE Bool | Gre
This is great! Two questions:
1) I want to make sure the function arity matches the list length (as a
runtime check). I think I can do this with an arity function using
Data.Typeable. I came up with:
arity f = a (typeOf f) where
a tr | typeRepTyCon tr /= mkTyCon "->" = 0
| otherwise
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Functional dependencies don't work in my case. Actually, I don't
see why they should.
Ah well, it's cruel to say that without explaining to us why!
Cause I don't see why the instantiation conflicts point
Hello,
You should be able to use fundeps to do exactly what you describe below.
Can you make a relatively small self-contained example which exemplifies
the ugliness you see?
-Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/07/2007 11:24:35 AM:
>
> I have some type-level sets using fundeps workin
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Functional dependencies don't work in my case. Actually, I don't see
why they should.
Ah well, it's cruel to say that without explaining to us why!
Cause I don't see why the instantiation conflicts pointed out by others
would vanish then.
I'm not
I have some type-level sets using fundeps working whereby equality and
membership etc are predicate functions. This seems to leads to an explosion
of ugly code, with `If' class constraints etc getting out of hand -- I want
to treat these as relations instead so providing the definition describes
e
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Functional dependencies don't work in my case. Actually, I don't see
why they should.
Ah well, it's cruel to say that without explaining to us why!
Cause I don't see why the instantiation conflicts pointed out by others
would
Hi,
I am working on a product to analyze posts made in Forums, Usenet and
discussion mailing lists like Haskell-Cafe. For this, I require the
messages to be accessible in this format:
(* example: Haskell-cafe *)
[ list of -
[ list of -
]
]
as XML.
However, I find that
On Dec 7, 2007 4:46 PM, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 6:27 AM, Victor Nazarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > nary 0 x [] = x
> > nary n f (x:xs) | n > 0 = nary (n-1) (f $ read x) xs
>
> Sometimes it helps to write type signatures for functions. As in this
> case, wher
On Dec 7, 2007 6:27 AM, Victor Nazarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool solution and not so complicated and ad-hoc. But I'd like to ask
> isn't the following definition is more natural and simple?
>
> nary 0 x [] = x
> nary n f (x:xs) | n > 0 = nary (n-1) (f $ read x) xs
Sometimes it helps to wri
On Dec 7, 2007 2:52 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In fact, that distinction is possible. The following article
>
> How to write an instance for not-a-function
> http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/typecast.html#is-function-type
>
> specifically describes a method of writing an instan
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | And I think that the solution is not to make the language larger and larger
> | everytime someone wants a feature but to give people the tools to provide
> | features without language changes.
>
> Of course that would be even better! (Provided of
Peter Padawitz wrote:
Functional dependencies don't work in my case. Actually, I don't see why
they should.
Ah well, it's cruel to say that without explaining to us why!
I'm not sure why a complete cyclic dep a -> b -> c -> d -> a isn't what
you want.
What seems to be needed here is a type
Functional dependencies don't work in my case. Actually, I don't see why
they should.
What seems to be needed here is a type class construct with a kind of
record parameter so that instance conflicts cannot occur.
Jules Bean wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Ryan Ingram wrote:
On 12/5/07, Ben
Philipp N. wrote:
> i'm trying to wrap functions (a -> b -> ... -> z) of any arity to functions
> of type ([String] -> y), where list of strings replaces the typed arguments.
> the problem is, that you cannot distinguish type (x->y) from z, so these
> instances are overlapping.
to which apfelmus
Philipp N. wrote:
i'm trying to wrap functions (a -> b -> ... -> z) of any arity to functions
of type ([String] -> y), where list of strings replaces the typed arguments.
one attempt looks like this (here written with type families, you can
replace it by functional dependencies or what ever):
| And I think that the solution is not to make the language larger and larger
| everytime someone wants a feature but to give people the tools to provide
| features without language changes.
Of course that would be even better! (Provided of course the resulting
programs were comprehensible.) Ha
46 matches
Mail list logo