Hi Facundo,
The program below when loaded in ghci prints always False, and when
compiled with ghc it prints True
From above, I guess the code is not compiled in ghci, which means
byte-code is used insted of object-code.
If what matter here is to get same result in ghci and compiled code,
Philip
| What I'm looking for is a function
|
| fitsInto :: TermType - HoleType - Maybe [(TyVar,Type)]
Happily there is such a function, but you will need to become quite familiar
with GHC's type inference engine.
We need to tighten up the specification first. I believe that you have
You are, in effect, doing pointer equality here, which is certain to be
fragile, ESPECIALLY if you are not optimising the code (as is the case in
GHCi). I'd be inclined to seek a more robust way to solve whatever problem you
started with
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From:
Dear Simon, et al,
Thank you very much for your reply. Some of the pointers you gave, I wouldn't
have come across, for not knowing to have to browse through the module Inst,
for example.
I read the OutsideIn paper (JFP), but that's a fair while back. I was pointed
to Thijs's work in progress
Hi Johan,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:06:39PM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
If a GHC release needs an unreleased change in one of the libraries, and
the maintainer (for whatever reason) is not responding to e-mails,
should
I'm using StableNames to recover sharing in abstract syntax trees of
an embedded DSL, and I'm kind of following the approach of accelerate
[1]. I was expecting the stable name comparison to be slightly more
reliable. I'm pondering the alternatives.
Many thanks for the replies.
Facundo
[1]
| Has maintainer's not being responsive been a problem for GHC in the
| past?
|
| Yes. Some of the upstreams respond so fast that it makes my head spin,
| while others often either don't respond or continually promise to get to
| things soon. (again, these are good, well-meaning people,
Hi Ian,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
You didn't give a clear answer to my question. Am I right in thinking
that your answer would be Yes, the GHC release should be delayed
indefinitely?
I did answer it, just not with a yes or no as it's a false
dichotomy.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
| Has maintainer's not being responsive been a problem for GHC in the
| past?
|
| Yes. Some of the upstreams respond so fast that it makes my head spin,
| while others often either don't respond or
