Language semantics

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Andrew Coppin
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:06:10PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>  
>> Um... shouldn't that read
>>  abstract v (a :@ b) = S :@ (transform (abstract v) a) :@: (transform
>> (abstract v) b)
>>    
>
> No, because the whole point of transform is that it handles recursion
> for you.

OK. Well in that case, I have no idea what transform is doing... (I
assumed it was just applying some function to every part of the
structure - but that wouldn't solve this case.)

> (However, there is a bug!  abstracting an unrecognized form
> (that is, a primitive combinator) should add a K.)
>  

I'm going to have to take some time to bend my mind around that one too...

(Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
just too low for Haskell??)

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Mark T.B. Carroll-2
Andrew Coppin <[hidden email]> writes:
(snip)
> (Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
> just too low for Haskell??)

I do. But then, when I finally understand something, it seems easy and
simple and I'm not sure why it wasn't obvious all along.

-- Mark

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Felipe Lessa
In reply to this post by Andrew Coppin
On 7/1/07, Andrew Coppin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> (Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
> just too low for Haskell??)

That's the best part of learning Haskell. You're always in touch with
the very best people --- directly or indirectly (i.e. using their
libraries and documentation).

--
Felipe.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Andrew Coppin
In reply to this post by Mark T.B. Carroll-2
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:

> Andrew Coppin <[hidden email]> writes:
> (snip)
>  
>> (Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
>> just too low for Haskell??)
>>    
>
> I do. But then, when I finally understand something, it seems easy and
> simple and I'm not sure why it wasn't obvious all along.
>  

*cough* monads *cough*

;-)

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Andrew Coppin
In reply to this post by Felipe Lessa
Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Andrew Coppin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> (Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
>> just too low for Haskell??)
>
> That's the best part of learning Haskell. You're always in touch with
> the very best people --- directly or indirectly (i.e. using their
> libraries and documentation).
>

I know what you mean...

(Personally, I am still in awe of people who write Haskell programs that
are *thousands* of lines long. I mean, like, wow!)

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Language semantics

Daniil Elovkov
In reply to this post by Andrew Coppin
2007/7/1, Andrew Coppin <[hidden email]>:
>
> I'm going to have to take some time to bend my mind around that one too...
>
> (Does anybody else on this list frequently get the feeling their IQ is
> just too low for Haskell??)

I do. Sometimes when I find myself doing some type hackery.

And that's a sad feeling. Not because I realise that my IQ is lower
than it could be, but because the whole idea of Haskell is doing
things fast and easily. While on that I can spend quite a lot of time.

But that's only that fragment of work. The rest goes well :)

When I do that, I may think "hey, seems like in Java I'd do that
pretty quickly without a lot of thinking" but then you realise that
you're striving for much more that you'd got in Java. Much more static
garantees, so the comparison isn't correct at all.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
12