Module System.Posix.Directory of the unix package defines
getWorkingDirectory :: IO FilePath
changeWorkingDirectory :: FilePath -> IO ()
I believe the functionality is quite portable and not limited to unix-like
systems. I know that e.g. Windows has chdir and getcwd. Module Filesystem of
t
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | It is unfortunate that the [ghc] manual does not give the translation
rules, or at
> | least the translation for the given example.
>
> Hmm. OK. I've improved the manual with a URL to the main paper
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/erk02recursive.html
> which is highly
isaac jones wrote:
> Iavor and I just made the trivial modification for DoAndIfThenElse
> syntax as described here:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/DoAndIfThenElse
>
> You can see the change here:
>
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/report/haskell-report-html/exps.
Andres Loeh wrote:
>> >I cannot see how an empty list of tyvars is useful or desirable in
>> >practice:
>> >data Foo = Foo (forall . Int)
>> >is equivalent to just
>> >data Foo = Foo Int
>> >so why bother to permit the former? It probably indicates some error in
>> >the thinking of the pro
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Unfortunately, I suspect that teaching is _the_ major use-case for
> defaulting. Imagine, day one, lesson one, a student types
>
> Prelude> 1+2
>
> into Hugs, and gets the response
>
> Unresolved overloading: Num a
>
> Huh? This is lesson one, and you already
Jón Fairbairn wrote:
> Syntax 1, based on Phil Wadler's improvement of my old
> proposal. The precedence relation is a preorder.[...]
>
> infix {ops_1; ops_2; ...; ops_n}
>
> The alternative syntax is exemplified thus:
>
> infix L + - (L * / (R ^))
>
> [...]
I think both ways (I like the secon
Henning Thielemann wrote:
> 1. 'if' syntax should be teached as
> if a
>then b
>else c
>This indentation makes pretty clear,
>what is condition, and what is the result in both cases.
>It just resembles
> case a of
>True -> b
>False -> c .
The
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2006-08-25 at 19:09PDT Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>> > There has been discussion in the past about whether Monad
>> > should be defined as
>> >
>> >> class Functor m => Monad m where ...
>>
>> It's more complicated now that we have Ross Patters
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 18:46, you wrote:
> Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> > However, it would help programmers a lot, specialy library users.
> > And it would lift some of the burden that is currently on the
> > library writer to never forget to derive all possibly useful
>
On Saturday 01 April 2006 16:26, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> priorities are also useful for solving other problems, where bounded
> queues can't help us. as i said, my own program contains one thread
> that reads thousands of files from disk and pushes their data into
> the queue. then other threads p
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 14:55, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:06:59AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > how about this old proposal?
> >
> > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg00727.html
>
> (Making 'deriving' a separate declaration instead of a clause)
>
> Or
On Monday 03 April 2006 08:38, John Meacham wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> > I'd like to be sure that asynchronous exceptions can get into the
> > standard. They require concurrency, but I'm not sure that they're
> > included in John's page.
>
> I am assumi
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 13:35, John Meacham wrote:
> I am not sure what the MVar guarentee means, if it is blocked on an
> MVar, then it becomes runnable when the MVar is filled, so the
> runnable rule seems to take care of it.
Unfortunately not. Suppose threads A, B, and C compete for taking t
On Thursday 09 March 2006 08:59, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Doaitse,
>
> Thursday, March 9, 2006, 12:01:37 AM, you wrote:
> DS> xs `zipWith (+)` ys
>
> i had the same desire several times
>
> > Possibly `()` ?
>
> it will be non-readable. it is better to just prohibit using of
> backquotes in
On Saturday 04 March 2006 19:35, Claus Reinke wrote:
> a more promising approach would be to specify the user-level features
> of the current system, then to show at least two translations: one
> for the current desugaring, and a second one to demonstrate at least
> one implementation of those feat
On Friday 03 March 2006 10:52, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But if contexts-on-datatypes worked correctly,
> > > data Set a = Ord a =>
> > > then even the "real" map from Data.Set:
> > > map :: (Ord a, Ord b) => (a -> b) -> Set a
On Friday 24 February 2006 16:38, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> i personally prefer to have
> public/private modifiers on each function and gather interface
> documentation by tools like haddock
Me too.
Ben
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskel
On Thursday 23 February 2006 09:53, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Personally, I would greatly prefer to have libraries that do not
> >> clash with common Prelude functions.
> >
> > I would solve this problem by reducing the Prelude to just a core.
> > List
On Friday 03 February 2006 08:52, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:57PM +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency,
> > natural numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
>
> There is one more reason to leave concurrency out
On Thursday 02 February 2006 23:25, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski:
> > [...]
> >
> > The proposal would be to remove the unary "-" altogether, and,
> > instead, extend the lexical syntax of numeric constant to allow "+"
> > and "-" prefix.
>
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 01:37, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> 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
On Saturday 28 January 2006 01:13, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
> Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that it should be exactly the other way
> > around:
> >
> > All normal bindings (i.e. using '=') should be as polymorphic and
> >
On Friday 27 January 2006 10:51, Simon Marlow wrote:
> How about an even simpler solution:
>
> *All* pattern and variable bindings are monomorphic unless a type
> signature is given.
My personal opinion is that it should be exactly the other way around:
All normal bindings (i.e. using '=') sh
23 matches
Mail list logo
