me up with for now. A great deal of high level
coding flying around above my head now.
Thanks,
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
If
> an extension is frequently need and the cost is low, then that argues
> for it..
Ah... harsh realities of engineering. Well I hope this is judged to be
important enough to be included in a future revision of Haskell.
Thanks,
TJ
___
Haskell
On 10/23/07, Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Short answer: You are worrying about syntax. The things you want are
> possible.
>
> TJ wrote:
> > Following up on my previous thread, I have figured out why it bothered
> > me that we cannot have a list such as
On 10/23/07, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/23/07, TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I find strange is, if we can have functions with hidden
> > parameters, why can't we have the same for, say, elements of a list?
> >
> > Suppose
have a List where the elements can be
instances of Show, or instances of subclasses of Show.
Why does this second rate treatment of type classes exist in Haskell?
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
e Line where ...
> [...]
Cool. I should get more familiar with basic Haskell98 before I decide
on using GHC extensions...
Thanks,
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 10/22/07, Tim Docker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TJ:
>
> > After all, sometimes all you need to know about a list is that
> > all the elements support a common set of operations. If I'm
> > implementing a 3d renderer for example, I'd like to have
>
see that Haskell has a Dynamic type...
I've got a good grip on this now, I think. Thanks everyone.
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
m a quick reading, the best I came up with was this:
data R = forall a. Renderable a => V a
instance Show R where
render (R a) = render a
Which is precisely what I meant when I said that I'd still have to
wrap things up in a constructor. Is this hidden type variable thing
what "e
istentials at all, but
I even if I use those, I'll still have to wrap things up in a
constructor, won't I?
Thanks a bunch,
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
.. Silly me :D
Thanks a bunch mate.
Cheers :)
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
with the definition
of (>>=) above? Or am I missing something?
(I know the article says that the type for their supposed State monad
at that point is not actually correct, and will be clarified further
on, but that seems to be irrelevant to my question.)
TJ the forever noobie.
___
ictly speaking, not lazy, but
non-strict. "It" being but read and thought about, and not practiced,
might prove _itself_ to become Undefined as I evaluate it further. :D
Cheers,
TJ
On 2/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
G'day all.
tjay.dreaming:
> So it
On 2/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would think that with 100% laziness, nothing would happen until the
> Haskell program needed to output data to, e.g. the console. Quite
> obviously that's not it. So how is l
d. Is that right? What else?
This is one of the things that just boggles my mind everytime I try to
wrap it around this thing called Haskell ;)
Cheers,
TJ
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ha
rd straight that it was C++
which screwed up my mind forever ;)
Donald:
Note that there's no need for any mutable variables here. If this isn't
suitable, perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what effect you're trying
to achieve?
Yes I've come to the same conclusion
ef
print new
modify2 = do ref <- theGlobalVariable
original <- readIORef ref
print original
writeIORef ref $ original ++ [2]
new <- readIORef ref
print new
doIt = do modify1
modify2
---
Thanks for the demo. I don't actually understand what's going on yet,
but your code doesn't really use a global variable, does it? From
what I can understand, the main function is passing the State to the
other functions.
I think I was careless about mixing "IO functions" and normal
functions. N
Thanks. I've been reading the docs and examples on State (in
Control.Monad.State), but I can't understand it at all. ticks and
plusOnes... All they seem to do is return their argument plus 1...
On 12/1/06, Bernie Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 01/12/2006, at 6:08 PM, TJ wr
First of all, sorry if this is a really silly question, but I couldn't
figure it out from experimenting in GHCi and from the GHC libraries
documentation (or Google).
Is there an IORef consturctor? Or is it just internal to the Data.IORef module?
I want a "global variable", so I did the following
20 matches
Mail list logo
