Sorry, missed a mail digest: LyX and lhs2tex sound more like what I
mean.
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Surry
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:24 PM
To: 'haskell-cafe@haskell.org'
Subject: Re: Richer (than ascii) notation for haskell source?
Lots of folk have
Lots of folk have suggested writing code with Unicode symbols, but that
doesn't really get me where I'm thinking of. Back in the day, I spent
many happy hours writing math(s) in amstex style, peppered with latex
backslash references/macros for greek symbols, set operators as well as
character attr
Probably a silly question, but for me one of the nice things about
Haskell is that it's a lot like just writing math(s). But in contrast
to math you lose a lot of notational flexibility being limited to the
ascii character set in your source code.
It would be nice to be able to use a richer
New to Haskell, with a mental block about how to represent this
situation efficiently:
I have an unknown function f which is defined on subsets of some
universal set (say integers 1...N). I know the values of f for some
subsets, and using those can infer values on other subsets.
So what
I'm new to Haskell and trying to get a better understanding of sharing
(and ultimately memoization). I've read SOE and various of the
tutorials, as well as browsing around the wiki and old mailing lists.
Most of the examples of memoization seem to revolve around Fibonacci,
and are based eith
