Home freenode/#haskell: Logs Calendar

Logs: freenode/#haskell

←Prev  Next→
Page 1 .. 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 .. 5022
— 502,152 events total
2020-09-29 00:56:54 <ski> the `let' is shadowing the `d' input with another locally defined function called `d'
2020-09-29 00:57:55 → DataComputist joins (~lumeng@static-50-43-26-251.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net)
2020-09-29 00:59:18 <ski> it also seems to me like this is better written without guards
2020-09-29 00:59:31 <Axman6> absolutely
2020-09-29 00:59:53 <sepi> where x /= xs, test ( next elements in xs, s, fs, d) ?
2020-09-29 00:59:55 <ski> (but if you really want to, i guess you could use them .. but it'd be unidiomatic)
2020-09-29 01:00:05 × heatsink quits (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:00:35 <ski> sepi : what is that supposed to check ?
2020-09-29 01:01:42 <sepi> I want to check if the states in xs are all unique
2020-09-29 01:02:05 <ski> how about defining a separate function for checking that ?
2020-09-29 01:02:20 → filwisher joins (~filwisher@cpc76738-dals23-2-0-cust186.20-2.cable.virginm.net)
2020-09-29 01:02:36 <ski> it seems you're trying to do too many things at the same time, in `checkFSM', and confusing them up with each other
2020-09-29 01:03:11 <sepi> checkFSM call all the functions or functions would be defined inside?
2020-09-29 01:03:31 <ski> "wishful thinking" can be useful, when programming. imagine you had a function that could check whether a list had no duplicates. then you could use that function to check one of your conditions for `checkFSM'
2020-09-29 01:04:14 × jespada quits (~jespada@90.254.241.6) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:04:16 × mu_ quits (~mu@unaffiliated/mu) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2020-09-29 01:04:21 <ski> you could either put off defining that function for later (after writing a bit of `checkFSM', perhaps all). or you could start by defining this helper function, and then come back to `checkFSM', to use it there
2020-09-29 01:04:46 → mu_ joins (~mu@unaffiliated/mu)
2020-09-29 01:04:59 <ski> you could either define such a helper function, inside a `where'-clause for `checkFSM'. or define it separately, in your module
2020-09-29 01:05:17 <ski> (with the latter option, you could test it out on its own, in the interactor)
2020-09-29 01:06:42 <ski> anyway, if you'd like to try this, you'd then have to do one of the harder things in programming .. namely invent some suitable name, for this helper function
2020-09-29 01:07:56 <Axman6> I already did some of that work, with isSubsetOf above
2020-09-29 01:08:04 → jespada joins (~jespada@90.254.241.6)
2020-09-29 01:09:28 → sagax joins (~sagax_nb@213.138.71.146)
2020-09-29 01:09:55 × nineonine quits (~nineonine@216.81.48.202) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:11:37 × merijn quits (~merijn@83-160-49-249.ip.xs4all.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:13:50 → concept2 joins (~concept2@unaffiliated/tubo)
2020-09-29 01:13:52 × xerox_ quits (~xerox@unaffiliated/xerox) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:14:42 × mu_ quits (~mu@unaffiliated/mu) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2020-09-29 01:14:47 → mu__ joins (~mu@unaffiliated/mu)
2020-09-29 01:15:30 → adam_wespiser joins (~adam_wesp@209.6.42.110)
2020-09-29 01:15:50 → falafel joins (~falafel@2605:e000:1527:d491:f090:20fe:cddf:2a1a)
2020-09-29 01:19:00 <sepi> https://dpaste.org/taJt#L1,3
2020-09-29 01:19:05 <sepi> my mind still goes elem
2020-09-29 01:19:29 <sepi> except I should've put notelem
2020-09-29 01:20:09 <ski> what is the intent of `go' ?
2020-09-29 01:21:47 × adam_wespiser quits (~adam_wesp@209.6.42.110) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:22:41 <sepi> use that to check my first case to see if qs has no duplicates is what I was thinking
2020-09-29 01:22:43 → heatsink joins (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
2020-09-29 01:23:22 <ski> that doesn't explain specifically what behaviour `go' is intended to have
2020-09-29 01:24:43 <ski> perhaps if you'd have a suggestion for how you'd want to call `go' from `checkFSM', that might clarify it a bit ?
2020-09-29 01:24:44 × mu__ quits (~mu@unaffiliated/mu) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2020-09-29 01:24:52 → mu_ joins (~mu@unaffiliated/mu)
2020-09-29 01:25:04 × ChaiTRex quits (~ChaiTRex@gateway/tor-sasl/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:25:32 <Axman6> ski: go only checks if a single element is contained in another list, it is _exactly_ the same as elem
2020-09-29 01:25:37 <Axman6> uh, sepi
2020-09-29 01:25:43 → ChaiTRex joins (~ChaiTRex@gateway/tor-sasl/chaitrex)
2020-09-29 01:25:52 <ski> (or else, if you prefer, you could tell what `go' is supposed to check/compute, given inputs, without referring to how you might then use that in `checkFSM')
2020-09-29 01:26:17 × dansho quits (~dansho@ip68-108-167-185.lv.lv.cox.net) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:26:33 → dansho joins (~dansho@ip68-108-167-185.lv.lv.cox.net)
2020-09-29 01:26:52 ski isn't bothering with the (current) implementation of `go', so far, at most taking the type signature of it into account
2020-09-29 01:27:38 × heatsink quits (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:29:07 × falafel quits (~falafel@2605:e000:1527:d491:f090:20fe:cddf:2a1a) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:29:15 <Axman6> sepi: I've said a few times now you should try to write a function with the following type: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Bool, which returns true if all the elements in the first list are contained in the second list. what do you think the base case of this function should be?
2020-09-29 01:30:01 × catkiki quits (~catkiki@m90-134-157-227.cust.tele2.hr) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:30:07 × revprez_anzio quits (~revprez_a@pool-108-49-213-40.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:32:17 → nineonine joins (~nineonine@216-19-190-182.dyn.novuscom.net)
2020-09-29 01:32:20 → revprez_anzio joins (~revprez_a@pool-108-49-213-40.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
2020-09-29 01:32:51 × nineonine quits (~nineonine@216-19-190-182.dyn.novuscom.net) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:33:06 → nineonine joins (~nineonine@216-19-190-182.dyn.novuscom.net)
2020-09-29 01:33:13 → heatsink joins (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
2020-09-29 01:34:41 × mu_ quits (~mu@unaffiliated/mu) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2020-09-29 01:34:47 → mu__ joins (~mu@unaffiliated/mu)
2020-09-29 01:35:13 × revprez_stg quits (~revprez_s@pool-108-49-213-40.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:35:39 → revprez_stg joins (~revprez_s@pool-108-49-213-40.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
2020-09-29 01:35:39 → adam_wespiser joins (~adam_wesp@209.6.42.110)
2020-09-29 01:35:53 <Axman6> sepi: do you understand that f ... | x = True | otherwise = False is the same as just f ... = x? "If x is true return true, otherwise x must be false so return false"
2020-09-29 01:36:01 → justanotheruser joins (~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser)
2020-09-29 01:37:07 × justan0theruser quits (~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:37:25 × heatsink quits (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:37:28 → merijn joins (~merijn@83-160-49-249.ip.xs4all.nl)
2020-09-29 01:37:36 <sepi> I suppose the base case would be if it were comparing list1to list2 which is empty it'd return false?
2020-09-29 01:37:47 × Wuzzy quits (~Wuzzy@p5b0df9fe.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:38:05 <Axman6> why false?
2020-09-29 01:38:27 <Axman6> the empty set is a subset of all sets isn't it?
2020-09-29 01:38:46 <Axman6> are all the elements of [] in [1,2,3]?
2020-09-29 01:40:16 <sepi> ah yes I was already thinking of it backwards are all elements of [1,2,3] in []
2020-09-29 01:41:30 → jedws joins (~jedws@121.209.139.222)
2020-09-29 01:41:41 × mu__ quits (~mu@unaffiliated/mu) (Quit: mu__)
2020-09-29 01:41:56 <sepi> for the guards I was using them because it was the only way I thought of going through all the cases at once. But I doing if, elif, elif instead it looks like
2020-09-29 01:42:03 → snakemasterflex joins (~snakemast@213.100.206.23)
2020-09-29 01:42:51 × merijn quits (~merijn@83-160-49-249.ip.xs4all.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:43:35 <Axman6> sepi: have you tried to write the function I suggested?
2020-09-29 01:43:36 → heatsink joins (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
2020-09-29 01:44:43 <sepi> could it work like, checkFSM (qs, [], [], []) = define func.....([], s, [], []) = define function
2020-09-29 01:44:46 <sepi> for seperation
2020-09-29 01:44:55 <sepi> I'll do the one you were talking about now
2020-09-29 01:45:17 <Axman6> sepi: look, if you want help, you need to listen to the help we give. if you're going to ignore it, then I'll go and do something else, it's not worth my time
2020-09-29 01:46:49 <Axman6> we're trying to steer you in the right direction, but you keep getting distracted. no, I don't think that will work, this isn;t something that makes sense to do by traversing the lists all at the same time. break the problem down into smaller problems like we've said, and then combine the results
2020-09-29 01:47:00 × snakemasterflex quits (~snakemast@213.100.206.23) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:47:30 × CrazyPython quits (~crazypyth@71-135-5-88.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) ()
2020-09-29 01:47:58 × heatsink quits (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:48:32 <Axman6> your final function will probably look something like: checkFSM (qs, s, fs d) = uniqueStates && startIsValid && finalsAreValid && transitionsAreValid where uniqueStates = ...; startsAreValid = ...
2020-09-29 01:50:34 <ski> sepi : have you used `&&' before ? do you know what it means ?
2020-09-29 01:50:54 × nek0 quits (~nek0@2a01:4f8:222:2b41::12) (Remote host closed the connection)
2020-09-29 01:51:59 → nek0 joins (~nek0@2a01:4f8:222:2b41::12)
2020-09-29 01:53:08 × xff0x quits (~fox@2001:1a81:537a:5700:d96:c29a:71ef:4f01) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:53:36 → heatsink joins (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
2020-09-29 01:54:28 × rcdilorenzo quits (~rcdiloren@cpe-76-182-87-188.nc.res.rr.com) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2020-09-29 01:54:46 × heatsink quits (~heatsink@107-136-5-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
←Prev  Next→
Page 1 .. 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 .. 5022

All times are in UTC.