I believe that some Microsoft Research folks at Cambridge got a fairly
far along implementation of Haskell on Java or .NET many years back
but concluded it wasn't a good fit. My rusty memory of a conversation
with Simon Marlow about this was that all the Java libraries basically
ended up in IO and
Dear Haskell community,
I have recently written an introductory-level tutorial article about
GADTs in GHC (inspired by LASER 2012 summer school and to be submitted
to their proceedings).
I have already send this draft to the "Haskell Cafe" mailing list, but
I was also advised to use these mailing
> The trac claims that ghc can compile itself to C so that only standard gnu C
> tools are needed to build an unregistered compiler.
Wait, it can? Where's that?
On 28 January 2013 02:15, Jason Dagit wrote:
> I would like to explore making a backend for .NET. I've done a lot of
> background read
I would like to explore making a backend for .NET. I've done a lot of
background reading about previous .NET and JVM attempts for Haskell. It
seems like several folks have made significant progress in the past and,
with the exception of UHC, I can't find any code around the internet from
the previo
This has the problem that kind is currently a valid function name, so it
would take a new keyword, or at least on conditional on the DataKinds
extension.
-Edward
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Erik Hesselink wrote:
> When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I
>> th
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Karel Gardas wrote:
On 01/21/13 12:49 AM, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Karel Gardas wrote:
Okay, I patched the settings filed generted by ./configure in the
binary-dist and rank make install which comple
>
> When we discussed this last time (summarized by the link Pedro sent, I
> think) it came up that it might be nice to also
> have kind synonyms, which would be analogous to type synonyms, but one
> level up. The "natural" syntax for that would be to have a "type kind"
> declaration, but this se
