DEAR SIR,
E HAVE FOR SALE USED FORMWORK PERI TRIO, 800 SQM STEEL AND ALU, AND USED
FORMORK DOKA FRAMAX 2 000 SQM, VERY GOOD CONDITION, LOCATION BERLIN.
PLEASE LET USK NOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THOSE PRODUCTS, WE WILL SEND YO
DETAIL LIST PER FAX.
BEST REGARDS.
S.BUTAUX.
CERI SCHALUNGSCENTER
Yes, we've seen behaviour like this here on that platform.
If you try feeding the failing compiler invocation the extra
command-line option -dshow-passes and it shows up as
failing pretty early on in the game (parsing, renaming),
here's something you may want to try out:
- in mk/build.mk (in
Hi GHCers --
I'm running GHC 5.02 on Win32 (2000 Professional), and having problems
compiling with the -prof option. There seems to be some sort of conflict
between the -package option and the -prof option.
For instance, this program:
module Main where
main = putStr Hello, world.\n
compiles
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:39:09PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
Dylan writes:
Incidentally, it seems to me that this is one case where a Lisp-like
macro facility might be useful. With Haskell, it is impossible to
play with bindings, while presumably you can do this with good Lisp
Very good. Is there a concrete proposal for such macros? I think the
arrow notation would be a harder test case than any of the existing
syntactic sugar; I'd be curious to see what it looked like. (And is
there support for adding these macros to Haskell?)
Sadly, there's not a concrete
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 01:02:07PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
Sadly, there's not a concrete proposal - it seems that no one sees a
need for macros in a lazy language. Most of what they do can be
achieved through laziness - you can write if in Haskell already, for
example, whereas you
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 08:33:15PM +0900, Dylan Thurston wrote:
So when I read the Syntactic Sugar for Arrows proposal, my initial
reaction is Wow, that's a little complicated. It doesn't look like
syntactic sugar to me.
Why, thank you!
This contrasts with the do-notation, which does look
Dylan Thurston:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 01:02:07PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
Sadly, there's not a concrete proposal - it seems that no one sees a
need for macros in a lazy language. Most of what they do can be
achieved through laziness - you can write if in Haskell already, for
| semantics). In doing so, I've come across an oddity. It seems
| that Haskell does not have the principal type property
It looks to me that you are correct. I hadn't realised that consequence
of the dreaded M.R.It may be well known in the Haskell community,
it wasn't well known to me.
| GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in read-ing in
| of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
| 3.0e-06 is acceptable but read 3e-06 is not (both read
| 3 and read 3.0 work fine as Doubles). It's the same in
| nhc and hugs. Perhaps this is some standard somewhere that
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in read-ing in
| of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
| 3.0e-06 is acceptable but read 3e-06 is not (both read
| 3 and read 3.0 work fine as Doubles). It's the same in
(snip)
Thomas Hallgren says:
| The following program was accepted by previous versions of
| GHC, but is not in GHC 5.02
|
| module HidingBug where
| import Prelude hiding (lookup)
|
| lookup env x = Prelude.lookup x env
|
| Instead, you get the error message
|
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:38:21 +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
They are heavily used in Clean, so, there *are* people who see a
need for them in a lazy language.
The Clean implementation doesn't inline functions across modules,
right?
--
__( Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL
On 10-Oct-2001, D. Tweed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Mark Carroll wrote:
On 10 Oct 2001, Ketil Malde wrote:
(snip)
function definitions. Perhaps one could have had a syntax like
z a =
| a == 1 - 1
| a == 2 - 3
instead,
Being one of the old-timers who was deeply involved in this issue, I can
assure you that the decision was not made out of fear that the idea was
patented, since in fact this is the first I've heard of that! (All we
knew was that the language was trademarked.) If I remember correctly,
the main
Hi, there,
Could anybody explain what does this type defination mean :
data xxx a = xxx (a -b)
looks xxx can use itself as constructor(like tree) but change the
type..
Thanks!
Song
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are there any plans to add closed classes as a hugs extension?
This was described in the paper:
Object-Oriented Style Overloading for Haskell, Mark Shields and Simon
Peyton Jones; BABEL workshop '01.
Eric Wohlstadter
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
17 matches
Mail list logo
