Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Brian Smith wrote:
I find it strange that right now almost every Haskell program
directly or indirectly (through FPTOOLS) depends on CPP, yet there
is no effort to replace CPP with something better or standardize its
usage in Haskell.
I think the
Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 03:52 +0200, Marc Weber wrote:
>> 1.)
>> I know I can use
>> Build-Depends: lib == , lib2 < version, lib3 >=
>> version
>> and so on.
>>
>> Do you think it would be useful to introducue some notation
Greetings Haskellers,
I have recently found myself in a situation where I was needing to
general tuples of randomized things; in my case, two coordinates and
a custom data type, Direction. As it is always better to generalize,
I decided to try to write some code which would generalize rand
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Brian Smith wrote:
> I find it strange that right now almost every Haskell program directly or
> indirectly (through FPTOOLS) depends on CPP, yet there is no effort to
> replace CPP with something better or standardize its usage in Haskell.
I think there should be more effor
Hi,
I want to generate documentation for the base libraries, so I darcs
get the base libraries, and a very basic (the sample default)
Setup.hs, and try:
runhaskell Setup configure
runhaskell Setup build
Pretty much no luck, but I'll leave that for someone else to sort out :)
runhaskell Setup h
John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I was mainly specifically comparing haskell to standard OOP classes,
|
| Most OOP languages certainly have some set of other features in addition,
| such as forms of ad hoc polymorphism or the template meta-language of
| C++, or the code reuse primitives
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello Gabriel,
|
| Sunday, August 20, 2006, 8:26:30 AM, you wrote:
|
| > | There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
| > | etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
| > | data type you pass a
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Brian,
Saturday, August 19, 2006, 12:21:34 PM, you wrote:
ie putting a '.' before each field name. The intended meaning is
that dotted field names do *not* generate top level functions.
Instead they allow the compiler to generate instance decls as
follows, where we
On 8/20/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C++ templates are a whole nother ball of wax.
And that's putting it politely. ;-)
T.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
I was mainly specifically comparing haskell to standard OOP classes,
Most OOP languages certainly have some set of other features in addition,
such as forms of ad hoc polymorphism or the template meta-language of
C++, or the code reuse primitives in sather, however I was mainly
interested in explo
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 12:32:05AM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Marc Weber wrote:
>
> > the rand* function are examples for a typical state usage, arent' they?
> > Is there any reasoon why they are not defined
> > RandomGen g => State g a
> > rather than
> > Ran
Hello Gabriel,
Sunday, August 20, 2006, 8:26:30 AM, you wrote:
> | There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
> | etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
> | data type you pass around.
> The dictionary can be attached to the operations
12 matches
Mail list logo
