Me neither; I'm guessing it goes back to the days when PortNumber used to be a type synonym (and synonyms could/had to be exported with (..).)
--sigbjorn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sigbjorn Finne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "robin abraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 03:33 Subject: RE: Network problem with ghc on WinXP > Is there a reason not to export PortNumber abstractly? I can't think of > one off-hand. > > Cheers, > Simon > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Sigbjorn Finne > > Sent: 29 January 2004 06:37 > > To: robin abraham > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Network problem with ghc on WinXP > > > > Hi there, > > > > looks like a network byte-order vs host byte-order gotcha. > > Never use the PortNum constructor, but declare 'portnum' > > to have type PortNumber and simply drop the use of PortNum > > in your code alltogether. Alternatively, use intToPortNumber > > to translate between Int and PortNumber. > > > > hth > > --sigbjorn > > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
