I looks like someone finally either forked the old plugin or decided to start a new one. link from IntelliJ site. Has anyone used this yet?submitted by spitfiredd
[link] [16 comments]
I was thinking and I noticed one could create a language identical to Scheme with a static typing system and type inference. So why can't we say Scheme itself is a statically typed language?5 :: Number (cons 1 nil) :: List Number (lambda (a) (+ a a)) :: Number -> Number (lambda (a) (cons a nil)) :: a -> List a
The only trouble I see would be something like below:(lambda (a) (if a 5 (cons 1 nil)))
But I guess one could just go ahead and say it is just a sum type:data NewType = Number | List (lambda (a) (if a 5 (cons 1 nil))) :: NewType
?submitted by SrPeixinho
[link] [13 comments]
I realize it's a pretty trivial thing, but it's been bugging me for a while. I searched a bit but couldn't find any historical reason for the list-centric naming of monoid functions.submitted by Hrothen
[link] [29 comments]
FWIW I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 and installed Haskell with:$ sudo apt-get install haskell-platform
Is this what is know as "dependency hell"? Would I be better off not using the apt-get package?
Also, AIUI cabal is Haskell's equvalent of Python's pip; is there a Haskell equivalent of Python's virtualenv (which let's me run multiple virtual environments, each with different packages installed)?submitted by cabalamat
[link] [15 comments]
I'm trying to write a function that converts a list to a palindromic list in the following way:> palindrate [1,2,3] [1,2,3,3,2,1] > palindrate "r/haskell" "r/haskelllleksah/r"
It is quite simple to write this in the following way:palindrate :: [a] -> [a] palindrate l = l ++ reverse l
However recently I've become rather fond of defining functions without explicitly referring to the value they are applied to. In most situations, like the one above, it takes a few moments of thought to figure out how to do this. I have come up with the following:palindrate :: [a] -> [a] palindrate = id &&& reverse >>> uncurry (++)
Is there a better way of doing this? And, other than the benefits derived from the programmer feeling good, is there anything to be gained from this approach?submitted by tekn04
[link] [16 comments]
Every Haskell programmer uses category theory whether she knows it or not - map/fmap and . are two basic examples. What I want to know is, how much do you code categorically? To what end do you do so?
Personally, I'm learning it as I go along; a small project I'm working on is converting some code I have written to use algebraic type constructors (e.g. a list having a datatype F a = 1 + a * F a) and so on.submitted by deltaSquee
[link] [51 comments]