On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:23:50PM -0700, Evan Laforge wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Felipe Lessa wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen
> > wrote:
> >> But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module
> >> functionality a p
Another useful extension here could be "friend modules" and "friend
packages," similar to friend declarations in C++. Then a restricted
set of modules or packages could see inside a package to extend it,
even as the package is closed to the rest of the world.
Alex
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM,
Whilst I have nothing against the change in syntax for recursive do aka
http://old.nabble.com/Update-on-GHC-6.12.1-td26103595.html
Instead of writing
mdo
a <- getChar
b <- f c
c <- g b
putChar c
return b
you would write
do
a <- getChar
rec { b <- f c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/21/10 13:18 , John Lask wrote:
> it does spoil the nice layout - it would be nice to just be able to write
> (which does not parse)
>
> do rec
> a <- getChar
> b <- f c
> c <- g b
> putChar c
> return b
>
> I don't particul
I think this would just require the lex layout rules already in place for
do/let in GHC; my guess is that your example would work if the body were
indented past the "r" of "rec".
for the record ...
> t2 =
> do rec
> a <- getChar
> b <- f c
> c <- g b
> putChar c
>
Hi,
I am experimenting with the new feature in GHC such as custom Handles.
I use GHC 6.12.2, base 4.2.0.1
I have pasted the code in question as
http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=26413#a26413
I am trying to create a Handle using a thread as data producer. In my
example is is a union o
