Derek Elkins wrote:
See vacuum: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/vacuum
Could be useful... Thanks!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Petr,
Thanks for the links. My research involves the study of current
algebraic specification and programming languages.
I have posted some very general and abstract style questions in order to
get a better feel of the individual languages.
I do not wish to become highly proficient in each
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
David Virebayre wrote:
Taking the opportunity to thank very much both Simons and Ian for the
work they do and the enthusiasm they show. You guys rock.
I heartily second that!
I won't disagree with that sentiment. ;-)
According to a paper I just read, GHC is
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
You don't need anything special for this. A Linux kernel struct device
has a void *driver_data member which is private for your use, and intended
for precisely this purpose. Global persistent state makes no more sense
alangcarter:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
You don't need anything special for this. A Linux kernel struct device
has a void *driver_data member which is private for your use, and
intended for precisely this purpose. Global
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
What sort of things can I do to check that I actually implemented this
correctly? I mean, ignoring what makes Foo special for a moment, how can
I check that it works correctly as a monad.
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Oct 17 15:21:28 -0400 2009:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
What sort of things can I do to check that I actually implemented this
correctly? I mean, ignoring what makes Foo special for a
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
What sort of things can I do to check that I actually implemented this
correctly? I mean, ignoring what makes Foo special for a
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Oct 17 15:21:28 -0400 2009:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
What sort of things can I do to check that I actually implemented this
correctly? I mean, ignoring what makes Foo
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Oct 17 15:21:28 -0400 2009:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
What sort of things can I do to
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I'm reasonably confident it works, but not 100% sure...
newtype Foo x = Foo (M - IO x)
In this case it is trivial, Foo = ReaderT M IO which is a monad.
Ah yes, of course... I keep
Am Samstag 17 Oktober 2009 22:24:08 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Oct 17 15:21:28 -0400 2009:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
Are you sure that's really the type you want for
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Samstag 17 Oktober 2009 22:24:08 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Oct 17 15:21:28 -0400 2009:
Suppose we have
newtype Foo x
instance Monad Foo
runFoo :: Foo x - IO x
Are you
Roel van Dijk schrieb:
A few weeks ago I wrote a patch that adds reverse dependencies to
hackage [1]. I have know hosted a small test hackage which
demonstrates this feature. It can be found here:
http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/hackage
Browse to your favorite packages and find out
14 matches
Mail list logo
