I thank Jeremy Gibbons, Ben Rudiak-Gould, and other people,
for their helpful explanations.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:34:55PM +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
>
> > As the types are resolved before the computation, as the above
> > program shows, how can addToSPai
>Why do you (or do these people) think having all the OO idioms of OCaml
>(see OCamls OO tutorial) is useless? Or do you mean too baroque? If not,
>what's missing?
Because it does not give us much that we cannot do nicely with the current
functional part.
separate name space of course. But i
--- Ketil Malde wrote:
Or, what if String were one? Could we have painless read/show with
arrays of Char, as well as lists, for instance?
--- end of quote ---
I think with a decent set of type classes for collections, better handling of strings
would come for free. If any list function could be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people say that ocaml's object system is kinda useless. The best
support I hear so far was:"it does not hurt"
Why do you (or do these people) think having all the OO idioms of OCaml
(see OCamls OO tutorial) is useless? Or do you mean too baroque? If not,
what's
missin
Some people say that ocaml's object system is kinda useless. The best
support I hear so far was:"it does not hurt"
implementation inheritance, the strange "#" syntax, virtual method, why do
I need them?
In Java, people are doing programming-against-interface, implementation
injection etc. All the
Shawn Garbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> viewpoint: What if List were a type class?
Or, what if String were one? Could we have painless read/show with
arrays of Char, as well as lists, for instance?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
___
John Goerzen wrote:
One of the best features of OO programming is that of inheritance.
...
Oleg, Keean and me have lying around a draft that adds to this
discussion. We reconstruct OCaml's tutorial in Haskell
The short paper version is online and under consideration for FOOL:
http://homepages.cwi.n
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Shawn Garbett wrote:
> Lists are an integral part of the Haskell language,
> and in fact most languages have some version of list
> at a fundamental level. Here's an interesting (not
> necessarily useful!) shift of viewpoint: What if List
> were a type class?
>
Then we'd need
--- Robert Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then perhaps it is worth considering having multiple
> implementations and
> choosing between them with pragmas and/or command
> line switches (with
> a sensible default naturally). Maybe doubly linked
> lists are not a
> great idea, but if we h
[Switched to haskell-cafe]
At 13:24 13/10/04 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
> > -- It's kind of like an converse map.
>
> I have attempted, unsuccessfully, to write flist above in a point-free
> manner. Is it possible?
> Of course it is, but why?
> flist = flip (map . flip ($))
Some functions are
The only problem with this is "name".
It is too easy to have naming clash in haskell. Field selectors are also
top-level functions and they shared the same namespace with other
functions.
for any reasonable scale program, we'll end up with ModuleA.read x,
ModuleB.read b. (Yes, we can alias the mod
Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
As the types are resolved before the computation, as the above
program shows, how can addToSPair expect anything besides a string
pair? Why tilda is not a default?
Haskell pairs are "lifted", meaning that they also include an extra
value (bottom) which doesn't match
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Goerzen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, recently I posed a question about rethinking some OO idioms, and
> that spawned some useful discussion.
>
> I now have a followup question.
>
> One of the best features of OO programming is that of inheritance. It
> ca
>addToSPair :: Char -> (String, String) -> (String, String)
What about:
addToSPair :: Char -> String -> String -> (String,String)
so that the pattern match is:
addToSPair c xs ys = (c:xs,ys)
This is irrefutable?
Keean.
___
Haskell-Cafe mail
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:23:43AM +0100, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> You can only return a list of pair's lazily, not
> a pair of lists. If the two strings are independant, then
> generate each in a separate function, and pair off the
> results lazily.
No, I have several labeled fields in a record,
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 10:06:44AM +0200, Sander Evers wrote:
>
> >Question 2
> >--
> >How to arrange the above `lazy' output?
> >
> >
> Your function addToSPair
>
> addToSPair :: Char -> (String, String) -> (String, String)
> addToSPairc (xs, ys) = (c:xs, ys)
>
Haskell type classes don't really behave as one might expect coming from an
OO perspective; cf.
http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/Learning-Haskell-Notes.html#type-class-misuse
That commentary doesn't say anything about interface inheritance. I don't
offhand have a good answer for that questi
>addToSPairc ~(xs, ys) =3D (c:xs, ys)
I thought pattern bindings had an implicit "~"?
Keean.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[I think this thread would be more appropriate on haskell-café, so I'm redirecting it]
| addToSPair :: Char -> (String, String) -> (String, String)
| addToSPairc (xs, ys) = (c:xs, ys)
|
| ---
|
| g1 is similar t
19 matches
Mail list logo
