On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:00:10AM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Parsing a very close approximation to what Haskell specifies isn't that
hard. You just need some mild interaction between the parser and lexer.
This algorithm can correctly de-whitespace haskell without any parser
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Reymont
I have finished an alpha version of my EasyLanguage [1] to C#
compiler and need to deploy it on Amazon EC2/S3.
My choice seems to boil down to HAppS [2], HOPE [3], or a
combination of Ruby/Rails with
On May 10, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
Depends. Did you leave out WASH intentionally?
http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~thiemann/WASH/
Nope, I forgot about it but looked at the Hemp app this morning.
Thanks, Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
Regarding Lambdabot, if dynamic loading is all you're after then you'd
be better off learning how to use hs-plugins and rolling your own. It's
pretty simple. For dynamic-loading-application design ideas, I suggest
reading this Yi paper:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/papers/SC05.html
On May 10, 2007, at 11:37 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
I've crawled all over the webpage, and I can't see any
documentation anywhere to this effect, but presumably all this
dynamic goodness only works if GHC is installed, right?
Yes, it's GHC-specific.
BTW... Does lambdabot seriously take
I've crawled all over the webpage, and I can't see any documentation
anywhere to this effect, but presumably all this dynamic goodness
only works if GHC is installed, right?
Yes, it's GHC-specific.
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer than
runs the final
On May 10, 2007, at 12:14 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer
than runs the final program need to have GHC installed. Presumably
is does if it's going to compile files on the fly. What about if it
only loads *.o files that are already
I can see it's GHC-specific, what I was asking is does the computer
than runs the final program need to have GHC installed. Presumably is
does if it's going to compile files on the fly. What about if it only
loads *.o files that are already compiled? Is GHC still required?
(Not that the
No, you can do the GHCi trick, converting it to Core, perform a small
number of Core-to-Core transformations, convert it to bytecode,
interpret the bytecode. Compare this to the programmer time to
implement directly executing an interpetted expression, and it starts
to get complex.
One of the
On May 10, 2007, at 12:52 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Plus, consider that people often throw extensions at lambdabot ---
do you support even simple stuff like forall in your interpreter?
Using ghc means you can use most of the ghc extensions.
Ah, yes, well, I avoid everything that isn't in
Hi Andrew,
Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
hard!
Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
takes a Haskell syntax tree and evaluates it :)
What is the value of show [] ? Remember that
Quite a lot of what people throw at lambdabot in #haskell is intended
to do type checking or type inference.
Ah, true...
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
hard!
Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
takes a Haskell syntax tree and evaluates it :)
I'm currently in the process of attempting to write
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:13:16PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Also remember that evaluating an expression in Haskell is _really_
hard!
Really? Looks pretty damn simple to me...
In that case I throw down the challenge of writing an interpetter that
takes a Haskell syntax tree and
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:24:51PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On the other hand, parsing Haskell input is intractably hard. Whitespace
actually matters, which makes the program to parse Haskell horrendusly
complex.
Do you know about the algorithm for converting Haskell source into
a
, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:59:38 +0100
From: Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Picking an architecture for a Haskell web app
No, you can do the GHCi trick, converting it to Core, perform a small
number of Core-to-Core
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Wait a sec... Are you trying to tell me that it is *faster* to take
the source, type check it, convert it to Core, perform 25,000
Core-to-Core transformations, convert Core to C, call GCC, link the
result together, dynamically
Folks,
I have finished an alpha version of my EasyLanguage [1] to C#
compiler and need to deploy it on Amazon EC2/S3.
The compiler web interface is very simple: paste EL code, get back C#
code or the same EL code with the error highlighted. I view the site
as more than just a compiler,
18 matches
Mail list logo
