On 2/19/08, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg's done a lot of work here; there's a bunch of magic that can be
done with TypeCast. I took my inspiration from here:
http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/typecast.html#ambiguity-resolution
. . .
The trick is to represent whether a type is
I'm trying to create a type called SmartArray. It is a type synonym for an
array. If the element type can be unboxed, then SmartArray is an unboxed
array. Otherwise, it is a boxed array.
For instance,
(SmartArray Int Double) is the same as (UArray Int Double)
(SmartArray Int String) is the
I apologize if this has already been posted. I sent the following message
several hours ago and I haven't seen it post. So, I'm resending.
I'm trying to create a type called SmartArray. It is a type synonym for an
array. If the element type can be unboxed, then SmartArray is an unboxed
array.
2008/2/15 Antoine Latter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(sent to the list this time)
The problem is in the type-signature for from_seq:
from_seq :: (Sequence seq) = (seq e) - (t e)
Neither the From_seq class or the type signature of the from_seq
function place any restrictions on the type of e, so
Hello,
I get an error message on the code below with GHC. I can't figure out how
to get rid of the error. I'd appreciate suggestions on how to fix this.
(BTW, the code may look overly combersome because I stripped out anything
unnecessary to demonstrate the error.)
{-# OPTIONS_GHC
On Feb 2, 2008 12:11 PM, Chaddaï Fouché [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To address this I propose this function :
foldl1MArray' :: (MArray a e m, Ix i) = (e - e - e) - a i e - m e
foldl1MArray' f a = do
(l,u) - getBounds a
firstElem - readArray a l
foldM (\a mb - a `seq` mb = return . f a)
On Feb 6, 2008 1:18 AM, Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Feb 2008, at 10:14 PM, Jeff φ wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 4:58 PM, Chaddaï Fouché [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/5, Jeff φ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is interesting. I've been programming in Concurrent Clean for a
while
On 2/6/08, Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I also believed that, but then I'm confused:
So monads *do* enforce uniqueness... So what is the difference between
Haskell's monad approach and Clean's uniqueness typing? I always thought
these were just two different ways to
On 2/6/08, Chaddaï Fouché [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/6, Jeff φ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have solved both of these problems in Clean using a lazy list without
resorting to unsafe operations. So, it seems to me that uniqueness
types
are more general than monads.
Are you aware that your
IO(U)Arrays are only one variant of mutable Array, there are also
ST(U)Arrays,
which are often preferred.
I should have worded my question better. The MArray interface is
implemented in both the ST and IO monad. A state monad seems like a logical
place for mutable arrays. However, I don't
I want to say thanks to everyone who responded to my mutable array post.
I'm going to work through and experiment with all the comments people
posted. It might take me a while.
Luke Palmer wrote:
Hmm, how big is the array? If it's pretty big, that's
understandable. Frankly, it's because
On Feb 5, 2008 4:58 PM, Chaddaï Fouché [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/5, Jeff φ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is interesting. I've been programming in Concurrent Clean for a
while.
Instead of monads, Clean supports unique types for mutable arrays and
IO.
In Clean, I can write code
I forgot to attach the source code for ArrayTest.icl
ArrayTest.icl
Description: Binary data
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hello,
I'm trying to write code that will take a mutable 2D array and normalize it
by dividing all elements by the largest element.
I managed to write code to do this, but it seems overly complex. I could
write something much simpler in Clean or C++. Most likely, my code is
complex because I
14 matches
Mail list logo
