|
 |
>>> I think that as soon as you find an example you try to reduce it to
>>> the bare essentials and post that. The same actually as when posting
>>> a bug.
>>
>> Ooo, 2 extra operations. Big deal.
> three and it hides what is actually going on. If you had done it, you
> would have realized that it was about associativity yourself.
What can I say? It wasn't the primary focus of my concentration. I just
wanted to check that my original hypothesis wasn't completely wrong.
>>>> (Currently attempting to build a Haskell parser, printer and type
>>>> interence engine.
>>>
>>> One word: why?
>>
>> Two words: why not?
>
> Because you can spend the same time and intellect on something that does
> help you in your career.
Well, yeah, that would be better. If I could think of something.
> Some thing that will in the end give you some
> credit when you finish it.
I have serious doubts that such a thing exists. I realise that's not
especially rational, but when you live for so long never receiving any
credit for anything you do, no matter how hard it was to do it, you
start to wonder whether credit actually exists at all.
> Not familiar with you open university, but
> they or similar institutes might have courses that are just as
> interesting as trying to build haskell from the ground up.
I looked. The OU in MK don't have anything remotely interesting.
Somebody else might I guess, but how to find them?
If the guys at Strathclyde get back to me it could be very
interesting... but it's been days now, and I've heard nothing.
> Granted if
> you finish that it might be something interesting on your CV, but what
> is the chance that you will?
I don't know. Depends on how difficult it turns out to be.
FWIW, I'm not really trying to "build Haskell from the ground up".
Rather, I'm trying to make a tool to help untangle complex compile
errors. Basically, I type in some code, and the program tells me what
types it's inferring, so you can try to figure out where it's going wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
