Two thoughts on this error-message thread.
1. It'd be easy to add a flag to trim the number of levels of context you get.
It'd mean yet another flag though.
2. Bryan got a rather long chunk of program text. GHC tries to trim the size
of program chunks by printing ... after a certain depth.
On 4/16/07, Isaac Dupree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code generated by Alex is perfectly good Haskell98+cpp, except:
#if __GLASGOW_HASKELL__ = 603
#include ghcconfig.h
#else
#include config.h
#endif
If that else is modified to only trigger if we're using GHC at all[1],
then plain C
A reasonable point. It's one of those matters of taste -- there will be people
who hate double-quotes too. Yet another flag?
Really we should use colours etc. Any volunteers?
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
| Behalf Of Isaac Dupree
|
This reminds me of the (closed) bug report about long error messages:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/719
I'm not convinced the original bug is fixed, and it seems somewhat similar to
Bryan's example, being a do-expression.
Cheers,
Simon
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Two
We'd like to solicit comments from the community on our plans for future GHC
releases. The current situation is this:
- 6.6.1 is nearly ready to go (perhaps this week, please test the RC!)
- 6.6.2 has ~35 outstanding tickets
- 6.8 has ~150 outstanding tickets
the default option would be to
If the output messages were in some sort of structured format then a
simple post processor could convert them into whatever style is requested.
A post-processor that generates the current messages could be tacked-on
to the end of the current compile tool-chain for backward compatibility.
On 4/16/07, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of this plan? Are there features/bug-fixes that you really
want to see in 6.8?
I'd rather see ghc 6.8 out early.
What about the implementation of associated/indexed type _synonyms_?
Cheers,
JP.
The messages aren't in a structured format currently; we just use
Text.PrettyPrint.HughesPJ (in fact an internal version thereof). However we do
paramterise the pretty printer by various things; e.g. whether to qualify
identifiers when printing them out, so paramterising by some style options
| What about the implementation of associated/indexed type _synonyms_?
working on it now. I v much hope it'll make the 6.8 release, but I don't want
to hold it up for that. Almost certainly *some* variant of indexed type
synonyms will be in though.
Simon
On 4/16/07, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there features/bug-fixes that you really
want to see in 6.8?
How about dynamic libraries? (there are a few 6.8 tickets for that I think)
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We'd like to solicit comments from the community on our plans for future
GHC releases. The current situation is this:
- 6.6.1 is nearly ready to go (perhaps this week, please test the RC!)
- 6.6.2 has ~35 outstanding tickets
I vote for 6.8.
Rene.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:00:32AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
Could you summarize the major tickets for 6.6.2?
The list milestoned or 6.6.2 is here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/query?status=newstatus=assignedstatus=reopenedmilestone=6.6.2order=priority
Not all of them would
simonmarhaskell:
We'd like to solicit comments from the community on our plans for future
GHC releases. The current situation is this:
- 6.6.1 is nearly ready to go (perhaps this week, please test the RC!)
- 6.6.2 has ~35 outstanding tickets
- 6.8 has ~150 outstanding tickets
the
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
- left-to-right impredicative instantiation: runST $ foo
This concerns me. With each ad-hoc extension of the type system, I
worry that soon the GHC type system will become so byzantine and
ill-specified that the type checker can only
On Apr 16, 2007, at 15:54 , Simon Marlow wrote:
- left-to-right impredicative instantiation: runST $ foo
Is this really a good idea? This will just make people complain that
€ (x € f = f x) doesn't work when you do foo € runST (or maybe it
does?).
-- Lennart
16 matches
Mail list logo
