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 typ
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.
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 sam
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
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
-fglasgow
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 >>= r
>
> 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 d
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
> > ar
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 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 i
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
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
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 becaus
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 do
14 matches
Mail list logo
