On 28/02/2012 15:59, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, so I see where your confusion arises - this assumption is not true in
general. Just discard the assumption, and I think everything will make more
sense.
Picking a size for -A
I updated my GHC version from 7.0.3 to 7.4.1. But after that GHC is
unable to install some required packages. For example when I type in
'cabal install -v hoogle' I get a lot of errors (see end of message).
Even after reinstalling the newest packages the errors still occurs. I
use Linux-x86_64
On 28/02/2012 15:56, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there are some in GHC - I've been surprised occasionally when adding
an UNPACK makes things worse.
I just realized that there is a failure mode I didn't quite consider:
On 29 Feb 2012, at 09:53, Antoras wrote:
I updated my GHC version from 7.0.3 to 7.4.1. But after that GHC is unable to
install some required packages.
containers-0.4.2.1 (reinstall) changes: array-0.4.0.0 - 0.3.0.3
binary-0.5.1.0 (reinstall) changes: array-0.4.0.0 - 0.3.0.3
I believe
I don't know where the dependency to array-0.3.0.3 comes from. Is it
possible to get more info from cabal than -v?
On Wed 29 Feb 2012 11:09:14 AM CET, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On 29 Feb 2012, at 09:53, Antoras wrote:
I updated my GHC version from 7.0.3 to 7.4.1. But after that GHC is unable
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
(I think you meant record, not field in the last sentence, right?)
I did mean record, but I wasn't being very clear. Let me try again.
It's not obvious to me why having a mixture of strict and nonstrict (maybe
you
On 12-02-29 06:04 AM, Antoras wrote:
I don't know where the dependency to array-0.3.0.3 comes from. Is it
possible to get more info from cabal than -v?
hoogle-4.2.8 has Cabal = 1.8 1.13, this brings in Cabal-1.12.0.
Cabal-1.12.0 has array = 0.1 0.4, this brings in array-0.3.0.3.
It is a
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:02:11PM -0500, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
It is possible to fish the output of cabal install --dry-run -v3
hoogle for why array-0.3.0.3 is brought in. It really is fishing,
since the output is copious and of low information density. Chinese
idiom: needle in ocean
On 2/28/12 5:14 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 17/02/2012 18:36, wren ng thornton wrote:
Hello all,
I had some patches committed to STM a while back[1], and for some reason
I was expecting them in the new GHC release. Does STM only ship with the
Platform? If not, then any idea when the next
On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
wren ng thorntonwrenat freegeek.org writes:
I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to
handle this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for
semantically-oriented field names,
That's what SORF does: the String Kind
and (2) make the
On 2/29/12 10:51 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 2/28/12 3:57 AM, AntC wrote:
wren ng thorntonwrenat freegeek.org writes:
I'm not sure it's a good proposal, but it seems like the only way to
handle this issue is to (1) introduce a new kind for
semantically-oriented field names,
That's what
On 02/28/2012 06:40 AM, AntC wrote:
Oliver Batchelorsaulzarat gmail.com writes:
Perhaps this situation could occur though?
Module A
fieldLabel name String
Module B
import A -- unknowingly picking up the name label
data Foo = Foo { name :: String } -- uses the name label by accident
So
Isaac Dupree ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org writes:
In the meantime, I had an idea (that could work with SORF or DORF) :
data Foo = Foo { name :: String } deriving (SharedFields)
The effect is: without that deriving, the declaration behaves just
like H98.
(For super flexibility,
wren ng thornton wren at freegeek.org writes:
That's what SORF does: the String Kind
No proposal is using a _type_-level string. Barney's confused you.
I was under the impression that all the working proposals were using the
Has class, ...
Yes, but:
a la:
someFunction ::
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, AntC anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz wrote:
I repeat: nobody is using a type-level string. You (or someone) is
making it up.
It isn't clear where that idea came from.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Yes, it would,
15 matches
Mail list logo
