On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> Michael Snoyman wrote:
>> main = do
>> fromAddr <- unsafePackAddressLen 7 $(return $ LitE $
>> StringPrimL "123\0\&456")
>> print fromAddr
>> let fromStr = S.pack $ map (toEnum . fromEnum) $(return $ LitE
>> $ StringL
Michael Snoyman wrote:
> main = do
> fromAddr <- unsafePackAddressLen 7 $(return $ LitE $
> StringPrimL "123\0\&456")
> print fromAddr
> let fromStr = S.pack $ map (toEnum . fromEnum) $(return $ LitE
> $ StringL "123\0\&456")
> print fromStr
>
> I get the result:
>
>
On 5/28/11 8:31 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
On Saturday 28 May 2011 14:19:18, Dmitri O.Kondratiev wrote:
Thanks for simple and beautiful code to get all pairs.
Yet, I need to get to the next step - from all pairs to build all
chains, to get as a result a list of lists:
[[abcde, acde, ade, ae,]
[
I installed the Haskell Platform (7.0.2) earlier, and I just downloaded package
soegtk with cabal, apparently unsuccessfully. Any suggestions?
Michael
[michael@sabal ~]$ cabal updateConfig file path source is default config
file.Config file /home/michael/.cabal/config not found.Writing default
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 13:34, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Tom Murphy writes:
>> Before you dismiss it as crazy, know that the topic was brought
>> up by Joe Armstrong
>
> Being brilliant doesn't mean the absence of mental bad hair days, but
> merely that they happen more rarely than for the rest o
Tom Murphy writes:
Modules tend to group togheter data structures and functions that
operate on them - i.e. natural units of code. So I think modules are
good also for didactical reasons, in that module imports limit the scope
a reader needs to know to understand the code.
I don't know Erlang,
Since no-one has yet mentioned it, and I think it might be relevant,
http://types.bu.edu/seminar-modularity/first-class-modules-for-haskell.pdf
I haven't read it with any degree of understanding, but I don't think it's
tractable to remove modules from haskell, nor desirable.
On Sat, May 28, 2011
On 18/05/2011 10:39 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 18/05/2011 05:28 AM, Don Stewart wrote:
I'm intrigued by the idea of Hackage docs that don't use Haddock.
This is basically the reason I asked. Currently Cabal assumes that
Haddock is the only tool of its kind. If somebody built a better
Haddock,
On Saturday 28 May 2011 14:19:18, Dmitri O.Kondratiev wrote:
>
> Thanks for simple and beautiful code to get all pairs.
> Yet, I need to get to the next step - from all pairs to build all
> chains, to get as a result a list of lists:
>
> [[abcde, acde, ade, ae,]
> [bcde, bde, be,]
> [cde, cd, ce,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Fischer <
daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 28 May 2011 13:47:10, Dmitri O.Kondratiev wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am trying to solve a simple task, but got stuck with double recursion
> > - for some reason not all list elements get processe
On Saturday 28 May 2011 13:47:10, Dmitri O.Kondratiev wrote:
> Hello,
> I am trying to solve a simple task, but got stuck with double recursion
> - for some reason not all list elements get processed.
> Please advice on a simple solution, using plane old recursion :)
> *** Task:
> From a sequence
For some reason, my previous message got truncated, so I repeat it in hope
that it will come complete this time:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dmitri O.Kondratiev
Date: Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Subject: Please help with double recursion
To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Hello,
I
Hello,
I am trying to solve a simple task, but got stuck with double recursion -
for some reason not all list elements get processed.
Please advice on a simple solution, using plane old recursion :)
*** Task:
>From a sequence of chars build all possible chains where each chain consists
of chars th
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:12, Alex Kropivny wrote:
> Regardless of how crazy it sounds, an idea from Joe Armstrong is worth
> seriously thinking over.
Possibly, but this is just another manifestation of a general problem
that nobody has yet managed to solve very nicely. Admittedly, the way
Erla
2011/5/28 Alex Kropivny :
> Erlang has the advantage of functions being the basic, composeable building
> block. Packages and modules are merely means to organize them, and mediocre
> means at that, so a better system is definitely a possibility. Haskell has
> the complication of having type defini
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is possible but I am trying to use Haskell’s type
class to specify *model expansion*. Model expansion allows the
specification of new symbols (known as enrichment) or the specification
further properties that should hold on old symbols. I am trying to
enrich simplified Mon
Emil Axelsson wrote:
Hello!
Lacking a proper blog, I've written some notes about Data.Unique here:
http://community.haskell.org/~emax/darcs/MoreUnique/
This describes a real problem that makes Data.Unique unsuitable for
implementing observable sharing.
The document also proposes a solutio
Regardless of how crazy it sounds, an idea from Joe Armstrong is worth
seriously thinking over.
This has bugged me before: think about how we design and write code as
project size, or programmer skill grows. You start with composing statements
inside a single function; later, you start to compose
On 28.05.2011 07:10, Tom Murphy wrote:
Hi All,
I sure love Hackage, but there's a very interesting discussion
going on, on the Erlang mailing list, about completely restructuring
the module-model.
Before you dismiss it as crazy, know that the topic was brought
up by Joe Armstrong, one
19 matches
Mail list logo
