#haskell - Sun 8 Apr 2007 between 00:00 and 00:13

NY Lost Funds



sorearnarain: don't enable -fglasgow-exts. it is evil and encourages nonportability.
I wish ghc properly supported LANGUAGE :(
narainoh, i do have that at the top of my code, dang
sorear@botsnack
lambdabot:)
narainhmm, mptc + (ghc < 6.6) => -fglasgow-exts
well, i can just not use deriving
but then i have to write the whole instance myself! is there no other way?
sorearnarain: exactly - see above abot language brokenness. GHC *should* just enable mptcs, but -fglasgow-exts is all-or-nothing internally
there's also a bug with newtype deriving
kpreidsorear: there are newtypes you can't derive on :)
sorearbut someone broke hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc
kpreid: but interestingly no such classes.
kpreid: you can crash ghc by telling it to newtype derive specially constructed classes
kpreid: but the bugtracker is down :(
narainso even if i upgraded to ghc 6.6 and just enabled mptcs using LANGUAGE, it would be the same as all of -fglasgow-exts?
kpreidoh, I see. "absolutely anything" meant classes
sorearnarain: I suspect so. (haven't tried it.)
I think I finally got the idea behind prolog.
narainwell that's not my main concern right now... if i just want the "obvious" instance of the type class, do i have to write it all myself?
ddariussorear: Say it.
narainsorear: prolog is fun but very cumbersome for things outside its particular domain
ddariusI'm suspecting that if you only "think" you do, you have a bit more to work on.
SamBisn't the idea behind prolog that you don't mind backtracking forever?
ddariusnarain: Prolog is pretty hideous but it's handy to learn.
SamB: If only.
sorearddarius: stateful backtracking with unification
ddariussorear: What does that mean to you?
jaredjtuomov: "Or forget multihead. It's stupid anyway.
"
narainddarius: well, i like the idea of logical variables that can be unified with each other
ddariusnarain: Logical variables are very nice.
narain: Prolog for better or worse, is the archetypical logic language, and, as such, is a must-learn language.
sorearddarius: when you have a function foo(X,X). and you see foo(true,X), we enter foo, we tentatively unify the top level true with foo's X, then the top level's X with true's X == true. then foo exits, and we see that top level X is unified with 'true', so we know that true satisfies the equations.
narainsorear: except foo is not a "function"
but yeah, pretty much
sorearMy denotations have been tainted by the operational mechanism I invented.
Before today, it was all unimplemenentable magic to me :)
actionddarius should make @prolog
ddariusshould make @prolog
I have all the code, just need to hook it into lambdabot.

Page: 2 9 16 23 30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79 86 

IrcArchive

NY Lost Funds