More Haskell Blue Sky: Partial Type Annotations

I sometimes come across a situation when I only want to provide a _partial_ type annotation, perhaps because the full type has some variable unified with some variable in some other type annotation, or something. For instance: f :: forall a. [a] - [a] - [a] f x y = g x where g [] = y

ÐÅÏ¢¸üÐÂ!¸ü¶àÓÅ»Ý!

Ç×°®µÄÅóÓÑ£º ÄúºÃ£¡ ÕâÊÇÀ´×ÔÈðÀ´ÍøÂç¼¼Êõ£¨ÏÃÃÅ£©ÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾µÄÎʺ¸ÐлÄúÊÕ¿´Õâ·âÓʼþ¡£ÎÒÃÇÕæ³ÏµÄÏ£ÍûÄúÄܳÉΪÎÒÃÇÔÚ ¹óµØÇøµÄÖØÒª»ï°é¡£ÎÒÃÇÊÇÒ»¼Ò²ÉÓÃÊÀ½ç¸ßм¼Êõ½á¾§£¬Ñо¿¡¢ÍƹãºÍ·¢Õ¹Ð¼¼Êõ£¬ÖÂÁ¦ÓÚ»¥ÁªÍøÐÅÏ¢·þÎñ¡¢ µç×ÓÉÌÎñ·þÎñºÍÆóÒµÓ¦Ó÷þÎñµÄ¸ßм¼ÊõÆóÒµ¡£ÏêÇéÇëä¯ÀÀ:http://www.raeline.net

Re: More Haskell Blue Sky: Partial Type Annotations

I actually have wanted a similar thing at times, the proposal I had in mind was a bit less drastic, simply allow '_' in type signatures which will unify with any arbitrary type. that way you can give any function the type f :: _ - _ or if you just want to resstrict part of the type you could say

Confused about seq and forms.

Somewhere (either Algorithms: AFA, some paper, or the haskell report) I read that seq evaluates its first argument to head normal form. I remember posting on this message forum or haskell-cafe that it evaluates the first argument to weak head normal form. At the time, I thought I was right,

Gratitude message (lazy evaluation etc. document.)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Jay Cox wrote: I still am trying to write a document about strictness and haskell evaluation for those of us without research degrees ;-) Just to say something quick. There are a few of you that actually responded when I was going to write what I then called A strictness

IFL 2002 Announcement

(Apologies for multiple postings) IFL 2002 14th International Workshop on the IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES Madrid Spain

RE: Cannot build 5.02.2 on Solaris 2.7

I've just finished building 5.02.3 on sparc-solaris, and didn't get any core dumps, so there must be something different about your setup. What version of gcc are you using? What version of GHC are you bootstrapping with? $ gcc -v Reading specs from

multiple methods pattern bug(?)

Hi, the following instance declaration doesn't work any more with ghc-5.02.3, it worked before. newtype ST state a = ST { unST :: state - (a,state) } instance Monad (ST c) where return x = ST (\state - (x,state)) (m = f) = ST (\state - let (x,state1) = unST m state

RE: multiple methods pattern bug(?)

the following instance declaration doesn't work any more with ghc-5.02.3, it worked before. newtype ST state a = ST { unST :: state - (a,state) } instance Monad (ST c) where return x = ST (\state - (x,state)) (m = f) = ST (\state - let (x,state1) = unST m state

Panic loading objects with big strings in Windows

With ghc-5.02.3 on Windows starting with a package containing an object with a large String I get the following message. Note the last line. ___ ___ _ / _ \ /\ /\/ __(_) / /_\// /_/ / / | | GHC Interactive, version 5.02.3, for Haskell 98. / /_\\/ __ / /___| |

Re: Cannot build 5.02.2 on Solaris 2.7

Simon Marlow wrote: $ gcc -v Reading specs from .../gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release) I don't know if this is relevant, but the above gcc looks like it was built on Solaris 2.5, but you're on a 2.7 system. Perhaps rebuild gcc to be on

register error

While trying to install GHC-5.02.3 (win32 release) in my computer (Windows 98), I got the following error message: Error 1406: Could not write value _MainFeature to key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINES\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Installer\Feat ures\8C655693FA0801D4E87FA1CA60C4AAE1 Verify that

ANNOUNCE: GHC 5.03.20020410 snapshot released

Another snapshot along the 5.03 line, we expect this to be the last snapshot before 5.04. As before, there are NO GUARANTEES as to the stability of this release, but it has passed our three-stage bootstrap and all but one(!) of the 754 regressions tests passed. Documentation is also still lagging

Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC 5.03.20020410 snapshot released

Another snapshot along the 5.03 line, we expect this to be the last snapshot before 5.04. As before, there are NO GUARANTEES as to the stability of this release, but it has passed our three-stage bootstrap and all but one(!) of the 754 regressions tests passed. Documentation is also still

RE: ANNOUNCE: GHC 5.03.20020410 snapshot released

Another snapshot along the 5.03 line, we expect this to be the last snapshot before 5.04. As before, there are NO GUARANTEES as to the stability of this release, but it has passed our three-stage bootstrap and all but one(!) of the 754 regressions tests passed. Documentation is

Re: An answer and a question to GHC implementors [was Re: How to make Claessen's Refs Ord-able?]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:06:14AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: this usage of unsafePerformIO is such a staple of real-world Haskell programming, it seems there should be some language (or experemental compiler *wink wink ghc nudge*) support for it. I am not sure what form it would take