Hi,
On 04/07/13 02:19, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
> I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out a simple, reasonably general,
> implementation for a category instance for pairs of categories.
>
> So far I've looked at [1], which seems great, but doesn't use the
> built-in category instance, and [2], w
Hi,
On 06/08/13 06:14, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the
> `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better" name for it?
> (for some definition of better)
Rather than proposing a different name, I'm going to challenge the
premise of your qu
Hi TP,
The difference is that in your second example, you have specified the
type signature
p :: a -> ExpQ
so GHC checks whether p has this type, and correctly objects that it
doesn't. If you leave off the type signature, as you did for sum', the
right thing will be inferred.
Hope this helps,
Hi,
On 28/08/13 21:05, Wvv wrote:
> Let we have data in one module as this:
>
> data Person = Person { personId :: Int, name :: String }
> data Address a = Address { personId :: Int, address :: String , way ::
> a}
>
> It was discussed a lot in topics "OverloadedRecordFields"
>
>
Hi Paul,
On 25/10/12 16:22, Paul Visschers wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've been playing around with the data kinds extension to implement
> vectors that have a known length at compile time. Some simple code to
> illustrate:
> [...]
> In this code I have defined a repeat function that works in a
(A little about me: I'm a PhD student working on type inference for
Haskell and dependent types, with about four years' Haskell experience
including work on big type-system related projects. I am familiar with
the theory behind GHC, but I haven't worked on the code b
Hi AntC,
Thanks for the feedback!
On 26/04/13 09:55, AntC wrote:
>> Adam Gundry strath.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am hoping to do a GSoC project this year working on GHC, and
>> have been pointed in the direction of the records issue (in
>
Hi Petr,
On 26/04/13 19:53, Petr Pudlák wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> very nice idea. As the others, I'm curious why you chose to implement
> SORF in favor of the other ideas?
As I've commented in a message just now [1], by mentioning SORF I didn't
mean to exclude taking on board the other proposals (p
Hi Johan,
On 26/04/13 20:46, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Since we have already had *very* long discussions on this topic, I'm
> worried that I might open a can of worms be weighing in here, but the
> issue is important enough to me that I will do so regardless.
I'm the one busily opening
Hi Mateusz,
It's not directly possible to write a class with a choice of
superclasses; as you point out, it's not really clear what that would
mean. One workaround, though it might not be sensible in practice, is
the following.
> {-# LANGUAGE ConstraintKinds, GADTs #-}
First, reify the constrain
Hi TP,
On 17/05/13 15:32, TP wrote:
| [...]
|
| So I modify my code by removing "deriving Show", and adding the line:
|
| instance Show (Person gender)
|
|
| But now, I obtain:
|
| $ runghc test_show.hs
| GHC stack-space overflow: current l
In case you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in Inform
(http://inform7.com/), which is a DSL for interactive fiction (aka "text
adventures") using natural language.
Cheers,
Adam
On 19/05/13 21:27, Matthew O'Connor wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I recognize this isn't directly a Haskel
Hi Nicolas,
Your design doesn't look too unreasonable, though I haven't looked at in
detail. I do have a quick observation regarding the implementation that
I hope might help. Your gist defines
> class MonadLog m a where
> getEntry :: Index -> m (Entry a)
>
> instance MonadLog (MemLog a) a
and
13 matches
Mail list logo
