At 2002-05-14 02:24, Simon Marlow wrote:
This is bizarre: the definition of evaluate in Exception is exactly the
one you gave above, yet they behave differently. You may have uncovered
a compiler bug, I'll look into it.
I might ask which is correct: according to the rules for seq, evaluate'
This is bizarre: the definition of evaluate in Exception is
exactly the
one you gave above, yet they behave differently. You may
have uncovered
a compiler bug, I'll look into it.
I might ask which is correct: according to the rules for seq,
evaluate'
undefined should be bottom, but
At 2002-05-14 02:58, Simon Marlow wrote:
I must admit I can't think of any compelling reasons for the change,
other than the fact that this is functionality that we don't
have at the
moment, and therefore might be useful. Opinions?
I need a function that does this:
evaluate ::
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:31:38PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
I have recently been experimenting writing code that replaces large
chunks of the Prelude, compiling with -fno-implicit-prelude. I notice
that I can happily redefine numeric literals simply by creating functions
called
Ashley writes
| I was hoping to do something similar for 'do' notation by redefining
| (), (=) etc., but unfortunately GHC is quite insistent
| that 'do' notation quite specifically refers to GHC.Base.Monad
Dylan replies
| I'm surprised that ghc uses the fromInteger and fromRational
|
