> Excellent, is there a -fuse-catch flag for ghc? :) No, but there is for Yhc. If you write to the Haskell standard (minus a little bit), don't like libraries and can get Yhc to compile (good luck!) then it's just a few command lines away.
If GHC (or GHC + some scripts) could produce a single Core file representing a whole program, including all necessary libraries, then implementing Catch would be a weekends work. Thanks Neil > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmitch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > ... exhaustive pattern checking might well help out a lot of >>> > people coming from untyped backgrounds... >>> >>> Or even people from typed backgrounds. I worship at the altar of >>> exhaustiveness checking. >> >> Do you really want exhaustiveness, or is what you actually want safety? >> >> With -fwarn-incomplete-patterns: >> >> test1 = head [] >> >> test2 = x where (x:xs) = [] >> >> test3 = (\(x:xs) -> 1) [] >> >> test4 = f [] where f [] = 1 >> >> GHC reports that test4 has incomplete patterns, but the others don't. >> However, test4 is safe, but the others aren't. Exhaustiveness is a >> poor approximation of safety. GHC's exhaustiveness checker is a poor >> approximation of exhaustiveness. 2 is a poor approximation of pi :-) >> >> Using Catch, it reports that test1..3 were faulty, but test4 is safe. >> >> Thanks >> >> Neil >> _______________________________________________ >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >> > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users