-fno-monomorphism-restriction
Hi, I've a file ATC/Sml_cats.hs that does not compile (see below) with the flag -fno-monomorphism-restriction (ghc 6.2.2), whereas it compiles fine without that option. Since I want to use -fno-monomorphism-restriction for other files (from programatica) I've a problem, because there is no option -fmonomorphism-restriction that I could place inside of ATC/Sml_cats.hs. If someone wants to reproduce the error, do the following: 1) check out HetCATS repository with: cvs -d pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/repository co HetCATS 2) comment out variable HC_PACKAGE in the Makefile (to avoid dependency from uni) 3) add the flag -fno-monomorphism-restriction to the variable HC_FLAGS 4) call (GNU) make Cheers Christian Compiling ATC.Sml_cats ( ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs, ./ATC/Sml_cats.o ) ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:23: Ambiguous type variable `a' in the top-level constraint: `ATermConvertibleSML a' arising from use of `ad'' at ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:2068 ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:23: Ambiguous type variable `a1' in the top-level constraint: `ATermConvertibleSML a1' arising from use of `aa'' at ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:1501 ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:23: Ambiguous type variable `a2' in the top-level constraint: `ATermConvertibleSML a2' arising from use of `aa'' at ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:1479 ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:23: Ambiguous type variable `a3' in the top-level constraint: `ATermConvertibleSML a3' arising from use of `las' at ./ATC/Sml_cats.hs:421 ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: User-defined operators and compound expressions using Happy
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:48 +0100, Frank-Andre Riess wrote: Hi there folks, once again, I've got a question related to Happy (I've got version 1.13 at the moment). Maybe, it's even more a question on formal languages, but well... How can I write a grammar that can cope with user-defined operators (of different precedences/associativities One standard solution is to parse user defined operators as if they were all one precedence/associativity and then re-associate them later once you know what the precedence and associativity of each operator is. That way the parser grammar does not need to be adjusted on the fly. So you wold parse 1+2*3 as [LiteralInt 1, Op '+', LiteralInt 2, Op '*', LiteralInt 3] and then later turn that into BinOp '+' (LiteralInt 1) (BinOp '*' (LiteralInt 2) (LiteralInt 3)) using your mapping of operators to precedence/associativity. Duncan Thank you very much. What I did by now is more or less along the lines of your suggestion, but it doesn't work to my satisfication yet. Might be due to overloaded tokens, though (e.g. '|' is both a set union operator and the seperator in case statements). Maybe we'll need to redesign the syntax. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: User-defined operators and compound expressions using Happy
On 2004 nov 22, at 17:48, Frank-Andre Riess wrote: Hi there folks, once again, I've got a question related to Happy (I've got version 1.13 at the moment). Maybe, it's even more a question on formal languages, but well... How can I write a grammar that can cope with user-defined operators (of different precedences/associativities) and compound expression like function calls, if-then-else- and case-statements and the like. I tried to write it down straight forwardly, but failed terribly (alas, I didn't keep it, so I can't show you - if someone of you is versed in this issue, I can try to explain the language's constructs). One way of doing this using combinator based parsing (where you can generate parsers dynamically) is to read the fixity declarations, and to use the result of this to build the precedence parser. This idea has been sketched in: S. D. Swierstra and P. R. Azero Alcocer. Fast, Error Correcting Parser Combinators: a Short Tutorial. In J. Pavelka, G. Tel, and M. Bartosek, editors, SOFSEM'99 Theory and Practice of Informatics, 26th Seminar on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Informatics, volume 1725 of LNCS, pages 111--129, November 1999. If you do not have access to this I will be happy to send it to you, Doaitse Swierstra Thank you very much. I don't know much about combinator based parsing, however (or maybe just therefor) I'm interested in having a closer look at it. I'd be obliged if you sent me your paper. ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: ghc -e
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 02:39, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Benjamin Franksen wrote: What about putting this thing on the Haskell Wiki? Feel free to do so. I recently noted that some version of GHC (6.3?) ships with a runghc program, so this problem will most likely disappear soon, though. http://cvs.haskell.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/fptools/ghc/utils/rung hc/runghc.hs Nice to hear that. Publishing the code is obsolete then. Ben ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Bug in touchForeignPtr?
Duncan Coutts writes: you cannot solve the finalisers problem just by running the finaliser thread to completion (or it'd be done that way already!) I guess, I was approaching the problem from the wrong side. What I am really interested in are the implications of this fact for the programmer. What I believe to have understood so far is: You have no guarantee that a finalizer you registered will ever be run -- even if the program terminates normally. Is that correct? Or did I misunderstand something? Peter ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
