I'm not a particular fan of exhaustiveness checking. It just
encourages people to write:
foo (Just 1) [x:xs] = important case
foo _ _ = error doh!
So now when the program crashes, instead of getting a precise and
guaranteed correct error message, I get doh! - not particularly
helpful for
Neil Mitchell wrote:
I'm not a particular fan of exhaustiveness checking. It just
encourages people to write:
foo (Just 1) [x:xs] = important case
foo _ _ = error doh!
So now when the program crashes, instead of getting a precise and
guaranteed correct error message, I get doh! - not
On 15/05/2009 12:19, Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:16:13 +0100, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 15/05/2009 05:52, Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
What happened to the Windows installation section in the corresponding
User's Guide? The User's Guide for GHC version 6.10.2
I'm not sure I'd want -Wall on by default (though being -Wall clean is
very good). But exhaustive pattern checking might well help out a lot of
people coming from untyped backgrounds.
http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/64
Ron's also wondering why exhaustive pattern checking isn't on ?
On 13/05/2009 19:53, Donnie Jones wrote:
Hello Dan,
Best place to ask is glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org since that is
the GHC users list.
I have CC'd your email to the GHC user list.
Cheers.
--
Donnie Jones
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Dandanielkc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Not sure if
On 11/05/2009 11:01, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
it seems that defaultsHook isn't documented on
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/runtime-control.html#rts-hooks
neither anywhere else in user manual
I think we'd like people to use ghc_rts_opts
On 16/05/2009 19:31, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello glasgow-haskell-users,
http://www.nongnu.org/cinvoke/faq.html
Is there a good reason to want an alternative to libffi? libffi works
pretty well, and seems to be widely used and supported.
Cheers,
Simon
Hello Simon,
Monday, May 18, 2009, 3:15:51 PM, you wrote:
Is there a good reason to want an alternative to libffi? libffi works
pretty well, and seems to be widely used and supported.
no, i don't have any objections against libffi. it was just for
information
--
Best regards,
Bulat
On 18/05/2009 12:06, Claus Reinke wrote:
I'm not sure I'd want -Wall on by default (though being -Wall clean is
very good). But exhaustive pattern checking might well help out a lot of
people coming from untyped backgrounds.
http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/64
Ron's also wondering why
More specifically, section 2.2.2 Moving GHC Around indicates that
the entire GHC tree can be freely moved around just by copying the
c:/ghc/ghc-version directory (although it is necessary to fix up the
links in 'Start/All Programs/GHC/ghc-version' if this is done);
however, this information is
Hi
data S = S { a :: Int, b :: ! Int }
Main a (S { a = 0, b = 1 })
0
Main a (S { a = 0, b = undefined })
0
Ho hum. Is this a known difference?
I've submitted a bug: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hugs/ticket/92
As an ex teaching assistant my
Hello Neil,
Monday, May 18, 2009, 8:14:56 PM, you wrote:
As an ex teaching assistant my recommendation is Use ghci!.
I helped to teach using WinHugs, which was quite nice. Auto reload
cuts out one very frequent source of problems.
i think we should fill a ticket against it. auto-save in
... exhaustive pattern checking might well help out a lot of
people coming from untyped backgrounds...
Or even people from typed backgrounds. I worship at the altar of
exhaustiveness checking.
Anyone know why it isn't the default?
I have been bleating to GHC Central about the generally
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Norman Ramsey n...@eecs.harvard.edu wrote:
P.S. The exhaustiveness checker does need improvement...
Is it documented somewhere what deficiencies the exhaustiveness
checker has (where it can report problems that don't exist or fails to
report problems that do...),
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Norman Ramsey n...@eecs.harvard.edu wrote:
P.S. The exhaustiveness checker does need improvement...
Is it documented somewhere what deficiencies the exhaustiveness
checker has (where
15 matches
Mail list logo
