On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:17:52PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:38:54PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
* When a program is started, the module initialisation actions of its
modules run, in an order that respects module dependencies.
What happens when there are
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:46:47PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I liked the original idea. I'm not sure if I agree with the argument
that allowing fully-fledged IO actions in the initialisation of a module
is unsafe. I agree that it is a little opaque, in the sense that one
can't easily tell
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:38:54PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
* When a program is started, the module initialisation actions of its
modules run, in an order that respects module dependencies.
What happens when there are cicular dependencies between modules. Perhaps
the circular
Hello,
[Excuse me for moving this discussion to the ghc mailing list,
but it seems the appropriate place, seeing as ghc is where
any solution will happen first in all probability.]
I've noticed that the neither of the two Simons has expressed an
opinion re. the discussions on this issue that
On 20 October 2004 14:36, Adrian Hey wrote:
[Excuse me for moving this discussion to the ghc mailing list,
but it seems the appropriate place, seeing as ghc is where
any solution will happen first in all probability.]
I've noticed that the neither of the two Simons has expressed an
opinion
-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
| Sent: 20 October 2004 15:47
| To: Adrian Hey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: Top level mutable data structures problem
|
| On 20 October 2004 14:36, Adrian Hey wrote:
|
| [Excuse me for moving
On Wednesday 20 Oct 2004 3:46 pm, Simon Marlow wrote:
I liked the original idea. I'm not sure if I agree with the argument
that allowing fully-fledged IO actions in the initialisation of a module
is unsafe. I agree that it is a little opaque, in the sense that one
can't easily tell whether a
