On 24 October 2005 21:45, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On 10/24/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the patch.
Again, with a small bugfix in docs.
Thanks; now committed.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On 10/14/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/14/05, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HEAD definitely. We don't change the specification of STABLE, only fix
bugs.
Great, I have the initial implementation, but I'll try to make it
prettier.
Here is the patch.
On 10/24/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the patch.
Again, with a small bugfix in docs.
Best regards
Tomasz
patch
Description: Binary data
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
On 13 October 2005 18:57, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On 10/11/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
I will try to do this
On which branch of GHC should I be working?
On 10/11/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
I will try to do this
On which branch of GHC should I be working?
There are some differences between HEAD and STABLE
in the
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed if
there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in favour, though.
a.out is tradition, of course, but OTOH, I don't
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
[..]
Would you accept the patch?
I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed if
there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in
On 11 October 2005 09:58, Ketil Malde wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed
if there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in favour, though.
On 11 October 2005 10:04, Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
You can always use Cabal, BTW :)
ghc should supply it, too.
GHC does come with Cabal. ?
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On 2005-10-11 at 09:49BST Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
It wasn't meant to be a bug report, only a feature request ;-)
Actually, I was mostly interested if anyone would mind if GHC
chose the name based on the top-level module.
Would you accept
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 10:45 +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2005-10-11 at 09:49BST Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
It wasn't meant to be a bug report, only a feature request ;-)
Actually, I was mostly interested if anyone would mind if GHC
chose
On 11 October 2005 11:04, Duncan Coutts wrote:
I'd tend to agree.
It'd mean one less magic incantation to tell students when teaching
practicals (and one less thing for them to get wrong) if they can do:
ghc --make Main.hs
rather than
ghc --make Main.hs -o Main
(that's one
On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
I will try to do this, but I don't have a working PC at home at the moment.
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:52:13PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
There's no really deep reason for this choice, other than it being what
GHC does normally - i.e. the default binary has always been a.out
(main.exe on Windows) unless -o is given.
I don't see enough of a compelling reason to
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once
lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the end of line:
$ ghc --make Prog -o Prog.hs
If you want, I can tell you about this great version control system
I'm using :-)
On 10/10/05, Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the end of line:
$ ghc --make Prog -o Prog.hsIf you want, I can tell you about this
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 08:38 schrieb Tomasz Zielonka:
On 10/10/05, Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once
lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the end of line:
Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
These kinds of answers are all too abundant, no offense meant. :-)
There are lots of things that *can* be done already, that doesn't mean
that we can't improve them!
Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
*the*
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
When I work on a program which is going to be named LongProgramName,
I usually put the Main module in file LongProgramName.hs. It would be nice
if I could build it with --make like this:
$ ghc --make LongProgramName
instead of
$ ghc --make LongProgramName -o
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
[...]
Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
*the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
files, then surely choosing the exe name from the main input file
would simplify a
On 10 October 2005 14:12, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
[...]
Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
*the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
files, then surely choosing the exe name
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:40:21AM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
Or better, a rule in the Makefile, with suffixes:
%: %.hs
ghc --make -o $@ $^
So, you just have to type make
On 10/10/05, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no really deep reason for this choice, other than it being what
GHC does normally - i.e. the default binary has always been a.out
(main.exe on Windows) unless -o is given.
I don't see enough of a compelling reason to change it, sorry.
On 10/10/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:40:21AM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
Or better, a rule in the Makefile, with suffixes:
%: %.hs
On 10/10/05, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
[...]
Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
*the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
files, then surely choosing the
25 matches
Mail list logo
