Hamilton Richards writes:
| In my previous example,
|
| > t = [0..]
| > b = 3 : t
| > c = 5 : t
|
| lists b and c share t, but in
|
| > x = 3 : [0..]
| > y = 5 : [0..]
|
| lists x and y share nothing. Extensionally, they have the same
| values as b and c, but each has its own
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:58:33AM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | > Simon Peyton-Jones. The implementation of functional
> | > programming languages. Prentice-Hall, 1987
> |
> | is this book could be made available online ? cos on amazon
> | it seems out of print.
>
> I'm planning
| > Simon Peyton-Jones. The implementation of functional
| > programming languages. Prentice-Hall, 1987
|
| is this book could be made available online ? cos on amazon
| it seems out of print.
I'm planning to scan it in and make the copy available online.
In the next month or two.
Simo
Mark P Jones comments:
...
> | > > Simon Peyton-Jones. The implementation of functional
> | > > programming languages. Prentice-Hall, 1987
...
> | This book is already on-line at
> |
> | http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/Papers/student.ps.gz
> That's a useful resource too, b
> >> ... So the question of whether names are "*the* (only) way" to obtain
> >> sharing isn't really a language question-- it's more of a
> >> compiler question.
> >
> >Are they the only way that's guaranteed to result in sharing, or is
> >even that not the case?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "
| > > Simon Peyton-Jones. The implementation of functional
| > > programming languages. Prentice-Hall, 1987
| >
| > is this book could be made available online ? cos on amazon it seems
| > out of print.
|
| This book is already on-line at
|
| http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/P
At 12:29 PM -0600 12/7/01, Jeff Dalton wrote:
>In-Reply-To: Hamilton Richards's message of Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:11:23 -0600
>
> ... But suppose in Java I have
>
> Object x = new Whatever();
>
>and that new object has some large substructures. I can get
>one of those substructures to be shared, r
, December 07, 2001 7:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pointers in Haskell??
I am totally new to Haskell, so maybe this is a stupid question.
Various languages have pointers (or references), for good reason.
Haskell can at least partly do without them (they are only existing
internally somehow).
My
This book is already on-line at
http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/Papers/student.ps.gz
(It was noted on the "Books and Tutorials" link from haskell.org, which
is usually the best place to start looking for something Haskell.)
Best Wishes,
Greg
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 12:57, Yoann Pad
In-Reply-To: Hamilton Richards's message of Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:11:23 -0600
> In my previous example,
>
> > t = [0..]
> > b = 3 : t
> > c = 5 : t
>
> lists b and c share t, but in
>
> > x = 3 : [0..]
> > y = 5 : [0..]
>
> lists x and y share nothing. Extensionally, they have the same valu
In my previous example,
> t = [0..]
> b = 3 : t
> c = 5 : t
lists b and c share t, but in
> x = 3 : [0..]
> y = 5 : [0..]
lists x and y share nothing. Extensionally, they have the same values as b
and c, but each has its own copy of [0..].
Unless, that is, the compiler is clever enough
> All Haskell compilers use pointers internally. The
> idea is that because Haskell is referentially
> transparent and side effect free, you can overwrite
> a function application with its result. For example,
>
> let
> x = [1..1000]
> in
> foo (A x) (B x)
>
> Will internally have "x" pointi
Jan Kort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Simon Peyton-Jones. The implementation of functional
> programming languages. Prentice-Hall, 1987
is this book could be made available online ? cos on amazon it seems
out of print.
>
> Jan
>
> ___
"Bryan Hayes (Hayes Technologies)" wrote:
>
> I am totally new to Haskell, so maybe this is a stupid question.
> Various languages have pointers (or references), for good reason.
> Haskell can at least partly do without them (they are only existing internally
>somehow).
> My question is: Does Ha
The answers are making this question seem trickier than I'd thought it
was, because so far they (both) make it sound like structure-sharing
is tied very closely to names / variables. For instance:
> In Haskell, you can arrange for a large data structure to be shared by
> giving it a name, and th
At 9:30 AM -0600 12/7/01, Bryan Hayes (Hayes Technologies) wrote:
> I am totally new to Haskell, so maybe this is a stupid question.
> Various languages have pointers (or references), for good reason.
> Haskell can at least partly do without them (they are only existing
> internally somehow).
> My
Hello,
> "Bryan" == Bryan Hayes <(Hayes Technologies)"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Bryan> My question is:
Bryan> Does Haskell principally not need pointers (i.e. in case of 2
Bryan> data structures needing to reference an other very large data
Bryan> structure) or is this
I am totally new to Haskell, so maybe this is a stupid question.
Various languages have pointers (or references), for good reason.
Haskell can at least partly do without them (they are only existing internally
somehow).
My question is: Does Haskell principally not need pointers (i.e. in case of 2
18 matches
Mail list logo
