On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> There ought to be a list_product somewhere (I mean [1..]
> `list_product` [4..] ==
> [(1,4),(2,4),(1,5),(3,4),(2,5),(1,6),...]). Is there?
This is called "fair conjunction" in "Backtracking, Interleaving, and
Terminating Monad Transf
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:34:30PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Still, you could argue that it doesn't actually tell you the cause of
> the problem: namely that i&j are being evaluated twice as often as you
> might expect by looking at the code.
Would not the "entries" count in the profile tip you
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:32:26AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 31 January 2006 17:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > This indicates that the warning "wouldn't happen much" _when you want
> > sharing_. But it would happen all the time when you don't want
> >
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:17:57AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 30 January 2006 21:49, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > In the present case, people aren't (only) opposing the M-R out of
> > principle, but because they actually use overloaded variable
> > definitions and (a
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:51AM +, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > Second, a warning about "loss of sharing" may befuddle beginners (who
> > are usually not taught to write type signatures at the start).
>
> Are standards documents the place for prescribing which warnings
> should be raised, and u
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:57:18AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:06:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>So I envisage that you'd turn off the warning in the same way as
> >
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:06:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In the present case, people aren't (only) opposing the M-R out of
> >principle, but because they actually use overloaded variable definitions
> >
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:45:56PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Given the new evidence that it's actually rather hard to demonstrate any
> performance loss in the absence of the M-R with GHC, I'm attracted to
> the option of removing it in favour of a warning.
I caution against the hope that warni
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:03:01PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:35:42PM +, Olaf Chitil wrote:
> > If Haskell had a type for natural numbers I'd be in favour of n+k and k
> > patterns (working only for this type, not any other numerical type).
>
> Haskell (FSVO "Haskel
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:04:43PM +0100, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> All normal bindings (i.e. using '=') should be as polymorphic and
> general as possible.
I agree with the position in the Ben's email. Also, especially since
much of the discussion has considered the impact on beginners, I want
10 matches
Mail list logo
