On Monday, October 14, 2013, Dag Odenhall wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Brandon Allbery
allber...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'allber...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Nope. Arch is a rolling release distribution whose policy is directly
opposed to the stable release philosophy of
As I do most of my development on a Mac I confess I currently live in fear
of accidentally clicking on the XCode 5 upgrade button and winding up in an
unsupported configuration. That makes me very leery of option C, where
developers like me are treading on egg-shells around system updates for the
It's worth noting that it's possible to have a working setup with Xcode 5,
it just requires having your own additional build of GCC locally (indeed,
that's my current setup), though this will likely have crazy linker errors
if I'm not careful :-) when linking a c++ lib built with clang.
On
I guess my point is there's a number of work arounds that are easy for a
power user to support, but should NOT be the default setup or config
required for new users.
Eg: brew also provides an installer for apple-gcc42 and you could then
point your ghc settings file to.
That said, it's not a
To briefly explain the issue with Xcode 5 and GHC 7.6.3, as it's really not
that big:
7.6.3 passes -x c when running the c compiler in preprocessor mode. Clang
requires -x assembler-with-cpp to be compatible with the GHC codebase.
So the workaround Austin Seipp helped me cook up is to simply wrap
Hi all,
Just wanted to let you know I've finished updating GHC iOS to support Xcode
5. The new scripts are at
https://github.com/ghc-ios/ghc-ios-scripts/tree/xcode5 and you'll find
updated instructions at
http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/CrossCompiling/iOS .
Please let me know if
But what stops the user from defining their own instances if they in fact
did not derive it?
The explicit False in Pedro's formulation seems to serve this purpose.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Nicolas Frisby
nicolas.fri...@gmail.comwrote:
The formulation as a type family seems to
The issue with such an explicit false is that it requires more magic on
behalf of the compiler.
It would have to be filled in whenever an explicit `instance Eq Blah` was
written.
Recall that
deriving instance Eq Blah
can occur after the data type declaration site and may have to be used for
Yuck.
But, many, many thanks for discovering this now instead of later.
For various silly reasons, I didn't have a platform (i.e. a recent enough HEAD
in the right state, etc.) for me to explore this today (Monday). But, I should
have the time and ability to look closer on Tuesday.
If it's
