On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:19:34PM -0800, Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Serge D. Mechveliani mech...@botik.ru,
...
Initially, I did the example by the Foreign Function Interface for C.
But then, I thought But this is unnatural! Use plainly the standard
Haskell IO, it has everything.
So, your
Hi all,
Does anyone know what may be causing ghc to be looking for such an old
version of Parsec, here?
$ ghc -o libami.so -shared -dynamic -package parsec -package dsp
-package arrows -lHSrts -L/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/ -lm -lffi -lrt
AMIParse.o AMIModel.o ami_model.o AMIModel_stub.o
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
[... good summary of the issues...]
But note what has happened: we have simply re-invented SORF. So the
conclusion is this:
the only sensible way to implement FDR is using SORF.
An obvious question at this
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems that we are agreed
that we must make use of types to disambiguate common cases.
I will try to make the case for (A), just so it has been put on the table.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 13:38, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems that we are
agreed
that we must make use of types to disambiguate common
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 13:38, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems
2012/1/14 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems that we are agreed
that we must make use of types to disambiguate common cases.
I will try to make the case
