J. Garrett Morris jgmorris at cs.pdx.edu writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, AntC anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz
wrote:
I repeat: nobody is using a type-level string. You (or someone) is
making it up.
It isn't clear where that idea came from.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:38 AM,
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM, AntC anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the
namespace.)
Nah, they have kinds, and they don't take parameters, so they're
On 29/02/2012 16:17, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com
mailto:marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
(I think you meant record, not field in the last sentence, right?)
I did mean record, but I wasn't being very clear. Let me try again.
It's not
J. Garrett Morris jgmorris at cs.pdx.edu writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM, AntC anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz
wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the
namespace.)
Nah,
On 21/02/2012 04:33, Evan Laforge wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Eugene Crossercros...@average.org wrote:
On 02/20/2012 10:46 AM, Evan Laforge wrote:
Is there something that changed in 7.4.1 that would cause it to decide
to interpret .hs files instead of loading their .o files?
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 07:58:42AM +, AntC wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because
they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the namespace.)
I haven't followed everything, so please forgive me if this is a stupid
question,
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 07:58:42AM +, AntC wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because
they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the namespace.)
I haven't followed
Ok, interesting info. But how to solve the problem now? Should I contact
the author of Hoogle and ask him about how solving this?
On 03/01/2012 02:02 AM, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
On 12-02-29 06:04 AM, Antoras wrote:
I don't know where the dependency to array-0.3.0.3 comes from. Is it
possible
Hi Antoras,
The darcs version of Hoogle has had a more permissive dependency for a few
weeks. Had I realised the dependency caused problems I'd have released a
new version immediately! As it stands, I'll release a new version in about
4 hours. If you can't wait that long, try darcs get
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 07:58:42AM +, AntC wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because
they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't control the namespace.)
I haven't followed everything, so
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:52:29PM +, AntC wrote:
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 07:58:42AM +, AntC wrote:
SORF's whadyoumaycalls are at the Kind level. (I'm not opposed to them
because
they're new-fangled, I'm opposed because I can't
Thanks Evan, I've had a quick read through.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
It's a bit difficult to compare to the other proposals.
I can't see discussion of extracting higher-ranked functions and applying them
in polymorphic contexts. (This is SPJ's `rev` example.)
Putting h-r fields
Hi Antoras,
I've just released Hoogle 4.2.9, which allows Cabal 1.15, so hopefully
will install correctly for you.
Thanks, Neil
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Antoras,
The darcs version of Hoogle has had a more permissive dependency for a few
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:52:29PM +, AntC wrote:
And you get In my opinion, this is ugly, ...
That comment was from strake888, not SPJ?
Thanks Ian, you're right. Specifically, it's 'igloo's tweak to the proposal
and 'strake888's comment. (I
AntC anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz writes:
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
But I think you are agreeing that (leaving aside the issue of whether
the design is reasonable) the above variant would indeed allow the user
to choose the behaviour of either SORF or DORF.
No,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:46:27PM +, AntC wrote:
Also this would be ambiguous:
object.SubObject.Field.subField
Well, we'd have to either define what it means, or use something other
than '.'.
In terms of scope control, I think (I'm guessing rather) you do get similar
behaviour
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:32:27PM +, AntC wrote:
AntC anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz writes:
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
But I think you are agreeing that (leaving aside the issue of whether
the design is reasonable) the above variant would indeed allow the user
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:32:27PM +, AntC wrote:
AntC anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz writes:
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
But I think you are agreeing that (leaving aside the issue of whether
the design is
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:32:27PM +, AntC wrote:
Yes-ish (leaving aside that issue). Under SORF you hve an extra behaviour:
- use String Kinds and your label is public-everywhere and
completely uncontrollable.
- (So
Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li writes:
* an extra arg to Has (how does the constraint sugar cope?)
You can infer ft from the f.
Let me explain better what I mean by two private namespaces, then we'll try
to understand how your proposal goes ...
module T where
data
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:44:45AM +0100, Gábor Lehel wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
Right, but other people would prefer the SORF behaviour to the DORF
behaviour.
Who and why? What's the use case?
My main complaint against DORF is
that having
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:04:13AM +, AntC wrote:
Let me explain better what I mean by two private namespaces, then we'll try
to understand how your proposal goes ...
module T where
data FieldT = Field
data RecT = RecT{ Field :: Int }
...
module U
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how we could avoid including -D, since it might really affect
the source of the module that GHC eventually sees. We've never taken -D
into account before, and that was incorrect. I can't explain the behaviour
I just committed a fix for this:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3217#comment:28
What do people think about getting this into 7.4.2? Strictly speaking it's
more than a bug fix, because it adds a new GHCi command (:seti) and some
extra functions to the GHC API, although I believe
On 03/01/2012 01:46 AM, AntC wrote:
Isaac Dupreemlat isaac.cedarswampstudios.org writes:
In the meantime, I had an idea (that could work with SORF or DORF) :
data Foo = Foo { name :: String } deriving (SharedFields)
The effect is: without that deriving, the declaration behaves just
like
Hi Antoras,
My suspicion is you've ended up with corrupted packages in your
package database - nothing to do with Hoogle. I suspect trying to
install parsec-3.1.2 directly would give the same error message. Can
you try ghc-pkg list, and at the bottom it will probably say something
like:
The
Isaac Dupree ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org writes:
AntC (in an unrelated reply to Ian) :
I prefer DORF's sticking to conventional/well-understood H98 namespacing
controls.
...
I'm not sure yet that DORF's namespacing is well-understood by
anyone but you.
No of course I'm not saying
27 matches
Mail list logo
