On Wednesday 06 November 2002 10:48 pm, Nicolas Oury wrote:
I am going to try to persuade you:
* first of all, it seems to be needed in order to make first class
modules (cf your paper) . And I think that a true module system would
be useful. But I may be wrong.
* As far as I am concerned,
As requested by several people, we're now making source snapshots of GHC
available every night, together with some binary distributions (only
x86-linux to begin with) built by the nightly build system.
Pointers to the snapshots are on GHC's download page, here:
Thanks, have read the paper, however also saw the paper by Simon
Peyton-Jones and
Mark Jones on Lightweight Extensible Records for Haskell, which I think
Simon refered
to in an earlier post... would it not be better to have this instead?
Regards,
Keean Schupke.
Alastair Reid wrote:
Enjoy...
Will do ...
I would appreciate a little note saying this snapshot is ok,
or this one is horribly broken, or maybe this one is a milestone,
if this is at all possible.
But, thanks anyway, Ralf
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL
I just read your proposal for lightweight extensible records for
Haskell and find it great.
But I just wonder : why not keeping both records systems (Haskell 98 and
extensible) with their own syntax, introducing for example [{..}] for
extensible records for example. This would resolve
I would like to be able to use the -xc option in ghci, since this is where
I do most of my debugging anyway. I can put
:set -prof -auto-all
:set -osuf prof.sun4.o -hisuf prof.sun4.hi
in my .ghci file, but I can't get ghci to run my code with -xc
enabled. If I try to :set +RTS -xc, ghci
I would like to be able to use the -xc option in ghci, since
this is where
I do most of my debugging anyway. I can put
:set -prof -auto-all
:set -osuf prof.sun4.o -hisuf prof.sun4.hi
in my .ghci file, but I can't get ghci to run my code with -xc
enabled. If I try to :set +RTS
