Ping!
At 2002-05-14 07:17, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>Ashley writes
>
>| > I was hoping to do something similar for 'do' notation by redefining
>| > (>>), (>>=) etc., but unfortunately GHC is quite insistent
>| that 'do' notation quite specifically refers to GHC.Base.Monad
>
>Dylan replies
>
>
> Anyone have any ideas that don't have such a big impact?
What we did in Hugs (for GreenCard stuff) was create a header file
containing _only_ the things needed by ffi'd code (example attached).
Since it was such a short file, it wasn't too hard to avoid
nameclashes.
This works because the ffi
On 2002-06-03 12:46:19 +0100 Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We really *should* do this, I know. The problem is that it isn't free
> by a long shot: it'll make .hc files significantly larger, and obfuscate
> a lot of code.
> Anyone have any ideas that don't have such a big impact?
We
> Sad, but very true! And GHC's headers are not very nice in
> this respect:
>
> panne@jeanluc:~> grep '#define [^ \t][^ \t] '
> /usr/lib/ghc-5.03/include/*
> /usr/lib/ghc-5.03/include/PrimOps.h:#define C 0
> /usr/lib/ghc-5.03/include/PrimOps.h:#define R 1
> /usr/lib/ghc-5.03/in
> However, in ghc-5.02.3 for Haskell 98 (without glasgow extensions) it
> seems that is not the case. I _guessed_ that I need to use the flag
> -fno-monomorphism-restriction
> but I don't know whether I've failed to turn it on or if the
> problem is to be found somewhere else. A related problem
>
>
> Is it possible to write an dot-product function that GHC will compile
> to efficient code without using unsafeAt? I've tried and can't. I'm
> looking at generic IArray functions pragma-specialized to UArray Int
> Double. With unsafeAt the -ddump-simpl output looks optimal to me
> (aside
