Hi,
Just checking my understanding here as I have not followed this thread
in all its details.
Gabor Lehel wrote:
I agree completely. This is what I like about DORF: the D stands for
Declared, which is referring to the fact that the contracts are
explicit. Record fields aren't automatically
2012/2/25 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com:
Please correct me if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized any aspect of
DORF.
Okay, I did end up misunderstanding and mischaracterizing at least two
aspects of DORF.
Re-reading the wiki page:
After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
Here is an example:
You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other
things) a field called name. There might be several different record types
with a name field, depending on whether the
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Barney Hilken b.hil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
Here is an example:
You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other
things) a field called name. There might be
Hi!
I'm trying to understand the interaction between the -A and -H RTS
flags. The documentation at
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.4.1/html/users_guide/runtime-control.html
says that if you use -H (with or without an argument) it implicitly
implies some value of -A. However, it's not clear
I wrote a program that uses a timed thread to collect data from a C
producer (using FFI). The number of threads in C producer are fixed (and
created at init). One haskell timer thread uses threadDelay to run itself
on timed interval. When I look at RTS output after killing the program
after couple
On further investigation, it seems to be very specific to Mac OS Lion (I am
running 10.7.3) - all tests were with -N3 option:
- I can reliably crash the code with seg fault or bus error if I create
more than 8 threads in C FFI (each thread creates its own mutex, for 1-1
coordination with Haskell
On 02/25/2012 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
This seems to me a much simpler approach than building the mechanism in to the
language as DORF does, and it's also more general, because it isn't hard linked
to the module system. Does it have any disadvantages?
I can't tell offhand whether it has
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Isaac Dupree
m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
On 02/25/2012 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
This seems to me a much simpler approach than building the mechanism in
to the language as DORF does, and it's also more general, because it isn't
hard linked to
My objection is that I'm not sure if there is ever a case where you
really want things to be polymorphic over all records.
Well, I don't have a simple, really convincing example, but there are certainly
things I want to play with.
More importantly, DORF automatically attaches one class to each
On 02/25/2012 05:10 PM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
Could you elaborate on this? (What's the way I don't want? What do you
mean by field-name-prefixes versus new-style overloading?) With DORF I
have control over which fields are polymorphic over which records,
very much like how I have control over which
On 2/25/12 11:51 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Perhaps it would make sense to document the actual algorithm used to
set -A given -H (with and without argument.)
+1. I've always been a bit hazy on how the two are related.
--
Live well,
~wren
___
On 2/24/12 5:40 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
I share Greg's concerns about polymorphic projections. For example,
given a function
sort :: Ord a = ...
we don't allow any 'a' that happens to export a operator that's
spelled= to be passed to 'sort'. We have the user explicitly create
an instance
On 2/25/12 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Barney Hilkenb.hil...@ntlworld.com wrote:
After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
Here is an example:
You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other
I have to take back what I said about the increase in worker tasks being
related to some Mac OS pthread bug. I can now reproduce the issue on Linux
(Redhat x86_64) too (and cause a segmentation fault once in a while). So,
now, it seems the issue might be due to either some kind of interaction
Whoa! suddenly a deluge over the DORF proposal.
I don't have time to reply fully now, but I must say: Barney
you have got it all wrong.
No, DORF does not attach one class to each label. There is
only one class 'Has', with methods get and set. Each record
decl generates an instance for the
Wren/all
Please remember SPJ's request on the Records wiki to stick
to the namespace issue. We're trying to make something
better that H98's name clash. We are not trying to build
some ideal polymorphic record system.
To take the field labelled name: in H98 you have to
declare each record in a
17 matches
Mail list logo
