From arkrost at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 15:55:09 2009 From: arkrost at gmail.com (Aravan) Date: Mon Dec 7 15:29:34 2009 Subject: export keyword In-Reply-To: <373fe6a90911241246g4d5aa85cm9d53f2877d25b38c@mail.gmail.com> References: <373fe6a90911241246g4d5aa85cm9d53f2877d25b38c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26683989.post@talk.nabble.com> Hav? a look on this http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/haskell/ffi.html Aravan wrote: > > What about using export keyword to mark the exporting functions? > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/export-keyword-tp26502967p26683989.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-prime mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From marlowsd at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 07:34:23 2009 From: marlowsd at gmail.com (Simon Marlow) Date: Mon Dec 14 07:08:44 2009 Subject: Nominations for the Haskell 2011 committee Message-ID: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting nominations for new committee members. Since this is the first time we've done this, the procedure is still somewhat unsettled and things may yet change, but the current guidelines are written down here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Committee In particular, on the makeup of the commitee: The committee should represent each class of stakeholders with roughly equal weight. These classes are * Implementers (compiler/tool writers) * Commercial users * Non-commercial users (e.g. open source) * Academic users (using Haskell in research) * Teachers * Authors In addition, members of the committee should be long-standing users with a deep knowledge of Haskell, and preferably with experience of language design. The committee should contain at least some members with a comprehensive knowledge of the dark corners of the Haskell language design, who can offer perspective and rationale for existing choices and comment on the ramifications of making different choices. To nominate someone (which may be yourself), send a message to haskell-prime@haskell.org. Please give reasons for your nomination. The current committee will appoint new commitee members and editors starting in the new year, so the deadline for nominations is 31 December 2009. During discussion amongst the current commitee, we realised that the choice of committee should be informed not just by the criteria above, but also by the particular proposals that are expected to be under consideration during this cycle. With that in mind, we plan that following the nominations the current committee will choose a "core commitee" of up to 10 members, and further members may be appointed during the year based on expertise needed to consider particular proposals. Accordingly, now would be a good time to start discussing which proposals should be considered in the Haskell 2011 timeframe, as that may affect the choice of commitee members. More details on the current Haskell Prime process are here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Process Cheers, Simon From malcolm.wallace at cs.york.ac.uk Sun Dec 20 07:35:49 2009 From: malcolm.wallace at cs.york.ac.uk (Malcolm Wallace) Date: Sun Dec 20 07:09:36 2009 Subject: Nominations for the Haskell 2011 committee In-Reply-To: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> References: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: > To nominate someone (which may be yourself), send a message to haskell-prime@haskell.org > . Please give reasons for your nomination. I would like to nominate Neil Mitchell for the Haskell Prime committee. He falls into the categories of commercial user, and open-source tool writer. He has been part of the Haskell community for around 5 years, and a very active contributor. Regards, Malcolm From doaitse at cs.uu.nl Wed Dec 23 16:23:18 2009 From: doaitse at cs.uu.nl (S. Doaitse Swierstra) Date: Wed Dec 23 15:56:55 2009 Subject: nomination for Haskell 2011 Message-ID: Herewith I propose Atze Dijkstra as a member of the Haskell 2011 committee. Atze is the main architect/implementor of the Utrecht Haskell Compiler (see http://www.cs.uu.nl/wiki/UHC, and last year Haskell Symposium), and has as a result of that a very good insight in the implementation issues involved with new features/extensions/changes. He furthermore co-supervises Arie Middelkoop who is working on the Ruler system, which aims to be a tool for describing (the implementations of) type systems, and Jeroen Fokker who is working on a Grin-based whole- program analysis The compiler itself is currently about 100.000 lines of Haskell. A second release is planned for the beginning of next year, which will contain a completely new garbage collector, a cabal based installation scheme, and the beginning of some global optimisations. I think Atze primarily covers the following categories: Implementors, Academic users, Teachers. If you have any questions I am more than willing to answer them, Doaitse From iavor.diatchki at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 13:24:46 2009 From: iavor.diatchki at gmail.com (Iavor Diatchki) Date: Tue Dec 29 12:58:07 2009 Subject: [Haskell] Nominations for the Haskell 2011 committee In-Reply-To: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> References: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5ab17e790912291024i7150d116tfcbe2e05b6f5f446@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I would like to participate in the design of Haskell 2011. I have used Haskell for about 10 years, commercially at Galois Inc, for the last 3. I have a good understanding of all parts of the language and various implementations, and I have a particular interest in its type system and semantics, which is why I think that I would be able to provide valuable input to the committee. -Iavor On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Simon Marlow wrote: > So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting > nominations for new committee members. ?Since this is the first time we've > done this, the procedure is still somewhat unsettled and things may yet > change, but the current guidelines are written down here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Committee > > In particular, on the makeup of the commitee: > > ?The committee should represent each class of stakeholders with > ?roughly equal weight. These classes are > > ? ?* Implementers (compiler/tool writers) > ? ?* Commercial users > ? ?* Non-commercial users (e.g. open source) > ? ?* Academic users (using Haskell in research) > ? ?* Teachers > ? ?* Authors > > ?In addition, members of the committee should be long-standing users > ?with a deep knowledge of Haskell, and preferably with experience of > ?language design. The committee should contain at least some members > ?with a comprehensive knowledge of the dark corners of the Haskell > ?language design, who can offer perspective and rationale for existing > ?choices and comment on the ramifications of making different choices. > > > To nominate someone (which may be yourself), send a message to > haskell-prime@haskell.org. ?Please give reasons for your nomination. > > The current committee will appoint new commitee members and editors starting > in the new year, so the deadline for nominations is 31 December 2009. > > During discussion amongst the current commitee, we realised that the choice > of committee should be informed not just by the criteria above, but also by > the particular proposals that are expected to be under consideration during > this cycle. ?With that in mind, we plan that following the nominations the > current committee will choose a "core commitee" of up to 10 members, and > further members may be appointed during the year based on expertise needed > to consider particular proposals. ?Accordingly, now would be a good time to > start discussing which proposals should be considered in the Haskell 2011 > timeframe, as that may affect the choice of commitee members. > > More details on the current Haskell Prime process are here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Process > > > Cheers, > ? ? ? ?Simon > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > From marlowsd at gmail.com Wed Dec 30 08:52:28 2009 From: marlowsd at gmail.com (Simon Marlow) Date: Wed Dec 30 08:25:50 2009 Subject: Nominations for the Haskell 2011 committee In-Reply-To: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> References: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B3B5B1C.5010100@gmail.com> I also put myself forward for next year's committee, although I'm equally happy to stand down and make way for new members. In any case I plan to continue working on proposals for Haskell 2011, perhaps we should be thinking about Concurrency for 2011? There's already a draft of the report text that I wrote for Haskell Prime here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Concurrency/DraftReportText Cheers, Simon On 14/12/09 12:34, Simon Marlow wrote: > So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting > nominations for new committee members. Since this is the first time > we've done this, the procedure is still somewhat unsettled and things > may yet change, but the current guidelines are written down here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Committee > > In particular, on the makeup of the commitee: > > The committee should represent each class of stakeholders with > roughly equal weight. These classes are > > * Implementers (compiler/tool writers) > * Commercial users > * Non-commercial users (e.g. open source) > * Academic users (using Haskell in research) > * Teachers > * Authors > > In addition, members of the committee should be long-standing users > with a deep knowledge of Haskell, and preferably with experience of > language design. The committee should contain at least some members > with a comprehensive knowledge of the dark corners of the Haskell > language design, who can offer perspective and rationale for existing > choices and comment on the ramifications of making different choices. > > > To nominate someone (which may be yourself), send a message to > haskell-prime@haskell.org. Please give reasons for your nomination. > > The current committee will appoint new commitee members and editors > starting in the new year, so the deadline for nominations is 31 December > 2009. > > During discussion amongst the current commitee, we realised that the > choice of committee should be informed not just by the criteria above, > but also by the particular proposals that are expected to be under > consideration during this cycle. With that in mind, we plan that > following the nominations the current committee will choose a "core > commitee" of up to 10 members, and further members may be appointed > during the year based on expertise needed to consider particular > proposals. Accordingly, now would be a good time to start discussing > which proposals should be considered in the Haskell 2011 timeframe, as > that may affect the choice of commitee members. > > More details on the current Haskell Prime process are here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Process > > > Cheers, > Simon From camarao at dcc.ufmg.br Wed Dec 30 11:22:48 2009 From: camarao at dcc.ufmg.br (Carlos =?iso-8859-1?Q?Camar=E3o?=) Date: Wed Dec 30 10:56:04 2009 Subject: Nominations for the Haskell 2011 committee In-Reply-To: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> References: <4B2630CF.5040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: If and when you think the MPTC (Multi-parameter type class) dilemma should be discussed, in particular with respect to our recent work on this problem [1], I would be glad if I can contribute. Best regards, Carlos [1] Carlos Camar?o, Rodrigo Ribeiro, Luc?lia Figueiredo, Cristiano Vasconcellos, SBLP'2009 (13th Brazilian Symp. on Prog. Languages), 2009. Available via www.dcc.ufmg.br/~camarao/CT/solution-to-mptc-dilemma.pdf > So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting > nominations for new committee members. Since this is the first time > we've done this, the procedure is still somewhat unsettled and things > may yet change, but the current guidelines are written down here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Committee > > In particular, on the makeup of the commitee: > > The committee should represent each class of stakeholders with > roughly equal weight. These classes are > > * Implementers (compiler/tool writers) > * Commercial users > * Non-commercial users (e.g. open source) > * Academic users (using Haskell in research) > * Teachers > * Authors > > In addition, members of the committee should be long-standing users > with a deep knowledge of Haskell, and preferably with experience of > language design. The committee should contain at least some members > with a comprehensive knowledge of the dark corners of the Haskell > language design, who can offer perspective and rationale for existing > choices and comment on the ramifications of making different choices. > > > To nominate someone (which may be yourself), send a message to > haskell-prime@haskell.org. Please give reasons for your nomination. > > The current committee will appoint new commitee members and editors > starting in the new year, so the deadline for nominations is 31 December > 2009. > > During discussion amongst the current commitee, we realised that the > choice of committee should be informed not just by the criteria above, > but also by the particular proposals that are expected to be under > consideration during this cycle. With that in mind, we plan that > following the nominations the current committee will choose a "core > commitee" of up to 10 members, and further members may be appointed > during the year based on expertise needed to consider particular > proposals. Accordingly, now would be a good time to start discussing > which proposals should be considered in the Haskell 2011 timeframe, as > that may affect the choice of commitee members. > > More details on the current Haskell Prime process are here: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Process > > > Cheers, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > From cgibbard at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 19:35:05 2009 From: cgibbard at gmail.com (Cale Gibbard) Date: Thu Dec 31 19:08:18 2009 Subject: nubBy, groupBy specification Message-ID: <89ca3d1f0912311635r25065a10me6b576b3fe4ffb60@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I've recently been irritated with (what I consider to be) broken versions of nubBy in GHC 6.10.4 and 6.12.1. For a while, groupBy was broken in the same way, but it seems to be fixed at least in 6.10.4. The problem is roughly caused by nubBy being specified only for symmetric relations, where this is actually a rather silly constraint, given that it captures a very common pattern of sieving (that at least I'd personally not want to have to write recursively every time). My most common usage of nubBy is actually probably nubBy (>=), (which has to be changed to nubBy (<=) for recent GHCs), and variations on it. This is extremely useful as a kind of lazier approximation of maximum or minimum. I occasionally use nubBy with equivalence relations (after these, I'd say (==) `on` foo is probably my next most common use case), but it's surprising how often that's actually not quite the right thing. Of course, there's also the inefficient but pretty example of constructing the list of primes using the divisibility relation and nubBy, which getting this wrong also breaks. What do people think of the following spec? nubBy f xs produces a subsequence ys of xs which satisfies: 1) f x y is False whenever x occurs before y in ys. 2) ys is maximal with respect to containment subject to condition 1. 3) The sequence of indices of selected elements is lexicographically minimal subject to conditions 1 and 2. (That is, the selections are made greedily.) Similarly, I think groupBy f xs should be specified as: groupBy f xs produces a list of lists yss of contiguous elements of xs such that: 1) concat yss = xs 2) Each element of yss is a nonempty list (y:ys) such that all (f y) ys. 3) The sequence of lengths of elements of ys is lexicographically maximal subject to conditions 1 and 2. (Again, this just means it greedily prefers to put elements in earlier lists rather than later ones.) Note that the code given in the Haskell 98 spec does the right thing with respect to these specifications, but Haskell 98 says that they're not specified for non-equivalence relations, while I think that they actually should be. A general policy that I think we should try to adopt is that the expression graph produced by a higher order function on lists, in terms of the supplied functions, should as far as reasonably possible maintain the left-to-right order of occurrences of elements as they occurred in the list. This makes the precise behaviour easy to remember, and tends to keep expression graphs easy to draw. foldr, foldl, scanr, scanl, mapAccumL, nubBy and groupBy (as specified above), all follow this rule (of course, many simpler HOFs do as well). mapAccumR as specified strangely does not, which makes it another thing I'd like to change. (See: http://cale.yi.org/index.php/Fold_Diagrams) cheers! - Cale