I presume you're on Windows? MSYS or Cygwin? Which version of gcc?
MSYS 1.0.11 and MinGW GCC 4.4.0.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Failed-to-bootstrap-6.10.4-with-itself-on-Windows-%28MinGW%29-tp24599789p24620500.html
Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users
I presume you're on Windows? MSYS or Cygwin? Which version of gcc?
MSYS 1.0.11 and MinGW GCC 4.4.0 (it's installed and on PATH it's put before
ghc, but I don't know whether ghc will use this one or the one bundled with
it).
--
View this message in context:
I believe, Language.Haskell.Pretty can properly output haskell code (and
the GHC API should be able to do so, too. Does the GHC API output tabs?)
Surely you mean Language.Haskell.Exts.Pretty, right? ;-)
The haskell-src-exts library does not (yet) support full
round-tripping source-to-source,
Niklas Broberg wrote:
I believe, Language.Haskell.Pretty can properly output haskell code
(and the GHC API should be able to do so, too. Does the GHC API
output tabs?)
Surely you mean Language.Haskell.Exts.Pretty, right? ;-)
The haskell-src-exts library does not (yet) support full
Discussion period: 2 weeks
Returning to this discussion, I'm surprised that so few people have
actually commented yea or nay. Seems to me though that...
* Some people are clearly in favor of a move in this direction, as
seen both by their replies here and discussion over other channels.
* Others
Alright, let's set an actual discussion period of 2 weeks for
ExplicitForall. If there is no opposition by then, we can add
ExplicitForall to the registered extensions in cabal as a first step.
Slightly more than two weeks later, there has been no voices against
and at least a few in favor.
I've fixed GHC's pretty-printer to print do-notation using braces and
semi-colons, which is much more robust. I hope that's useful
SImon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Jan
Hi,
True, but then you have to declare the kind manually.
-Iavor
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sittampalam,
Ganeshganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com wrote:
One can use the following style of GADT definition, which avoids the
type variables in the declaration:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs,
On Friday 10 July 2009 5:03:00 am Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Isn’t ExistentialQuantification more powerful than using GADTs for
emulating existential quantification? To my knowledge, it is possible to
use lazy patterns with existential types but not with GADTs.
6.10.4 doesn't allow you to use ~
OK, I've tried ghc's supplied gcc, too (not so easy, I need to set some
environment variables first) and here are the results:
With ghc's gcc:
D:/Sources/ghc/ghc-6.10.4/ghc/stage1-inplace/ghc.exe -package rts-1.0
-optc-O2 -
odir dist/build -c cbits/longlong.c -o dist/build/cbits/longlong.o
10 matches
Mail list logo
