Am Freitag, 14. Oktober 2005 16:25 schrieben Sie:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I always couldn't understand why one has to write regular
> > expressions as strings
>
> Because the language used inside these strings is standard,
> mu
Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
> >> Prelude.
>
> > I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
> > the language itself and decouple librar
Am Freitag, 14. Oktober 2005 16:26 schrieben Sie:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> a message of 23 lines which said:
> > alpha = ('A' `to` 'Z') ||| ('a' `to` 'z')
>
> If you intend to seriously specify a new language for regexps, ple
On 15/10/05, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
> >> Prelude.
>
> > I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
> > the language itself and decoup
David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
>> Prelude.
> I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
> the language itself and decouple library standardization from the
> definition of the language
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:34:33PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2005-10-14 at 16:25+0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
> > Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > a message of 23 lines which said:
> >
> > > By the way, it should be possible
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:15:11PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
> On 2005-10-13, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 11:29:57AM +,
> > Robin Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > a message of 22 lines which said:
> >> ... and, in the case of the Standard Pr
On 2005-10-13, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 11:29:57AM +,
> Robin Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 22 lines which said:
>
>> ... and, in the case of the Standard Prelude section, or equivalent,
>> a specification of well-understood fu
> > Regexps and XML are, IMHO, also "must haves".
>
> By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in an
> Haskell-like way.
Harp? :-)
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~d00nibro/harp
/Niklas
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskel
On 2005-10-14 at 16:56+0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:34:33PM +0100,
> Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Because the language used inside these strings is standard,
> > > multi-language, widely used and documented?
> >
> > 10,000 lemmings can't be wro
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:34:33PM +0100,
Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> > Because the language used inside these strings is standard,
> > multi-language, widely used and documented?
>
> 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong?
Right, disregard ASCII and sp
On 2005-10-14 at 16:25+0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 23 lines which said:
>
> > By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in
> > an Haskell-like way.
>
> If you like
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in
an Haskell-like way.
If you like so, but as one more possi
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> alpha = ('A' `to` 'Z') ||| ('a' `to` 'z')
If you intend to seriously specify a new language for regexps, please
consider Unicode. There are more letters than A to Z...
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in
> an Haskell-like way.
If you like so, but as one more possibility, not as the only way.
> I always could
Am Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2005 13:39 schrieb Stephane Bortzmeyer:
> [...]
> Regexps and XML are, IMHO, also "must haves".
By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in an
Haskell-like way. I always couldn't understand why one has to write regular
expressions as strings wh
> From: Marco Tulio Gontijo e Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Em Qui, 2005-10-13 às 09:47 +0100, Bayley, Alistair escreveu:
>
> *
> Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message blah blah
blah
>
> Is this kind of
Em Qui, 2005-10-13 às 09:47 +0100, Bayley, Alistair escreveu:
> -
> *
> Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any
> attachments, may contain confidential and/or
Hello Stephane,
Thursday, October 13, 2005, 11:24:30 AM, you wrote:
SB> As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
SB> I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
SB> standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which means
SB> more debu
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
...
> As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
> I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
> standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which means
> more debugging and more documentat
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 11:29:57AM +,
Robin Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> ... and, in the case of the Standard Prelude section, or equivalent,
> a specification of well-understood functions that the spec authors
> agree "should" be provided in all imple
Well, what we already have is a lot of language extensions with
varying degrees of support across implementations. GHC is somewhat of
a standard in and of itself, and one thing that standardisation
efforts bring is a record of what exactly GHC is doing, thus allowing
for more and better implementat
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
> I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
> standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which means
> more debugging and more docu
> As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
> I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
> standard.
Maybe you just don't realise how much we do need a new standard!
> standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which
> means more deb
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:39:34PM -0700,
Isaac Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> One of the main topics was the perceived need of a new standard,
As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
I would like to express a personal opinion;
25 matches
Mail list logo
