Brian Hulley wrote:
Robin Green wrote:
So simply make strictness the default and have laziness annotations
(for arguments), instead of making laziness the default and having
strictness annotations.
Where would you put these laziness annotations?
If you put them in the function declaration eg
Brian Hulley wrote:
if' :: ~a -> ~b -> Bool
Oooops :-)
if' :: Bool -> ~a -> ~a -> a
Regards, Brian.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33:12PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
One question is how to get some kind of "do" notation that would
work well in a strict setting.
The existing "do" notation makes use of lazyness in so far as the
second arg of >> is only evaluated when needed. Per
Robin Green wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:33:12 -
"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been thinking along these lines too, because it has always
seemed to me that laziness is just a real nuisance because it hides a
lot of inefficiency under the carpet as well as making the time/spa
Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
I pointed out some problems with strict Haskell in a recent talk, but
I think it'd be worth underscoring them here in this forum.
Is the text of this talk or points raised in it available online anywhere?
There is one very difficult piece of syntax in a strict setti
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33:12PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
> One question is how to get some kind of "do" notation that would work well
> in a strict setting.
> The existing "do" notation makes use of lazyness in so far as the second
> arg of >> is only evaluated when needed. Perhaps a new ke
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:33:12 -
"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been thinking along these lines too, because it has always
> seemed to me that laziness is just a real nuisance because it hides a
> lot of inefficiency under the carpet as well as making the time/space
> behaviour o
Brian Hulley wrote:
> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> [Apologies for replying to a reply of a reply but I don't seem to have
> received the original post]
>
> I've been thinking along these lines too, because it has always seemed
> to me that laziness is just a real nuisance because it hides a lot of
>
Brian Hulley wrote:
> > ...
>
> [Apologies for replying to a reply of a reply but I don't seem to have
> received the original post]
>
> I've been thinking along these lines too, because it has always seemed
> to me that laziness is just a real nuisance because it hides a lot of
> inefficiency und
On 2/3/06, Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have noticed that, while I like to use functional idioms in some of my
> Python
> code, and the Python language is easily able to support these (even some lazy
> evaluation, courtesy of generators), that the code doesn't always look as
> clea
On Feb 3, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 1:46:56 AM, you wrote:
i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to this discussion:
make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
expressions of form "f x
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 1:46:56 AM, you wrote:
i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to this discussion:
make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
expressions of form "f x" into "f $! x" and then going to the
standard (laz
Constructing some code today in Python, using some functional-style coding
idioms, I found myself wondering if there would be any real benefit to using a
monad-based implementation (i.e. other than to demonstrate that it can be done).
The application that sparked this line of thought was a simple
On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Maurício wrote:
Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
On 2/2/06, Maurício <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand those examples, but I really would like to know
how to
do that with monads. I would like to ask the same question, but
now with
this code:
double a = 1000;
dou
Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
On 2/2/06, Maurício <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand those examples, but I really would like to know how to
do that with monads. I would like to ask the same question, but now with
this code:
double a = 1000;
double b = 0;
while (a != b) {
a /= 2;
cout <
Matt Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am in love with HUnit and QuickCheck. However, I am missing one
> important functionality
I'm rather fond of them also.
Check my prototype of test-driven-development for QuickCheck:
http://www.scannedinavian.com/~shae/qc-tdd.tgz
> I want to call a co
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 1:46:56 AM, you wrote:
>> i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to this discussion:
>>
>> make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
>> expressions of form "f x" into "f $! x" and then going to the standard
>> (lazy) haskell t
17 matches
Mail list logo
