I think this is a great idea. I also think it should apply to the name
shadowing warning—identifiers imported implicitly should never trigger that.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Malcolm Gooding wrote:
> With the prelude changes that people have been discussing recently
> I've been wondering i
It should be good enough (for what you're talking about) to hide them all.
Turn
import A (foo)
import B (bar)
import C hiding (baz)
import D
into
import A (foo)
import B (bar)
import C hiding (foo,bar,baz)
import D hiding (foo,bar)
There's no reason to worry about hiding nonexistent identifiers
You mention only unqualified imports, but if we do this, it should also
apply to qualified ones:
import qualified Data.List as L
import qualified MyModule as L (isInfixOf)
On Oct 18, 2014 2:02 PM, "htebalaka" wrote:
> On 10/17/14 12:32, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > On 17/10/14 00:40, Austin Sei
I'm generally in favor of the proposal, but I figured I should mention one
situation when I personally might find this confusing. If the module import
list is very long, and includes an unrestricted import of a well-known
module, it might be easy to assume a certain well-known function comes from
t
+1.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
> (Not to be confused with the "hiding import behavior" discussion also
> going on)
>
> --
>
> Currently, I'm able to write "module Foo where" to export everything
> defined in Foo.
>
> If, though, I add to the module some definitions which
+1. Windows XP was Microsoft's most successful OS thus far, but it's pretty
much dead now. One potentially related potential concern: how will this
change affect Wine support?
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a quick discussion about the current system re
That's an interesting question. I'm not even close to an expert, but I
*think* that parametricity prevents those particular rules from breaking
Safe Haskell guarantees. The laws may not *hold* for a broken instance, but
I don't *think* that lets you break type safety or IO encapsulation.
On Nov 13,
I think you're right, and that's a strong reason to come up with an update
to the Haskell Report. Include in it, at least:
-- Big-ticket items
0. Monoid
1. Foldable, Traversable
2. Applicative
3. Applicative => Monad
-- side notes
4. inits = map reverse . scanl (flip (:)) [] -- efficiency—not opt
I've just taken over maintainership of the boxes package, and will be
making a maintenance release shortly (as soon as I figure out how and get
added to the maintainers group). The package, however, currently suffers
from a paucity of bug reports (no problem) and feature requests (not so
great).
T
And I've closed it as worksforme. I couldn't reproduce the problem
with 7.11.20150103.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:42 AM, adam vogt wrote:
> I've added it as https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10009
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Richard Eisenberg
> wrote:
>> After quite a bit of tho
Wrongly, as it turned out. Sorry! The problem remains.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Feuer wrote:
> And I've closed it as worksforme. I couldn't reproduce the problem
> with 7.11.20150103.
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:42 AM, adam vogt wrote:
>
Just use exit_ or something instead. Typed holes are a *really useful*
mechanism.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:51 PM, migmit wrote:
> DON'T DO THAT!
>
> Seriously, turn off compile-time type checking completely just to start an
> identifier with an underscore???
>
> Отправлено с iPad
>
> 20 янв. 201
If such verbiage is added, it should probably read more like "If you did
not intend to insert a typed hole, _foo may have been misspelled."
On Jan 21, 2015 9:11 AM, "Volker Wysk" wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015, 11:03:38 schrieben Sie:
>
> > If there's any comments on how to improve the war
On Jan 21, 2015 9:53 AM, "Stephen Paul Weber"
wrote:
> Having them on by default mean that valid Haskell2010 programs might get
rejected by GHC by default, which is a pretty bad state of affairs.
It would be if it were true. But it's not. All that changes is that you get
different error messages
I know this will be controversial, because it can break (weird) code and
because it's not Haskell 2010, but hey, you can't make brain salad without
breaking a few heads. ScopedTypeVariables is just awesome for two
fundamental reasons:
1. It lets you write type signatures for more things.
2. It let
On a machine with an SSD instead of a hard disk, swapping greatly reduces
the lifespan of the storage device.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Bertram Felgenhauer <
bertram.felgenha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> George Colpitts wrote:
> > I'm curious why the amount of RAM is relevant as all of our
Last I heard, it was extremely experimental and somewhat broken. Carter was
working on some of the worst problems, but he's been kind of busy.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Dominic Steinitz
wrote:
> What’s the story with this? I tried to follow the instructions here:
> https://ghc.haskell.or
I think this is a mistake, yes. They should not raise such exceptions, but
rather just wrap around—minBound `quot` (-1) should be -minBound=minBound.
That would justify the behavior of rem and mod, and makes much more sense
than the current behavior for Int as a ring.
On Jun 1, 2015 12:41 PM, "Niki
The Eq constraint is needed to support pattern matching, the raison d’être
of pattern synonyms. I'm pretty sure the reason you need
ScopedTypeVariables for your second example is that GHC only allows pattern
signatures with that extension enabled. Once upon a time there was a
separate PatternSignat
esign relating to pattern signatures and in particular to pattern bindings.
On Sep 30, 2015 2:26 PM, "Bardur Arantsson" wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 08:10 PM, David Feuer wrote:
> > The Eq constraint is needed to support pattern matching, the raison
> d’être
> > of patt
Does this really strain storage infrastructure? There are only a few
blobs per release. If that's really a problem, sufficiently ancient
ones can presumably be pruned down to a single format without too many
complaints (e.g., if someone wants GHC 7.6, they may not be able to
have their choice of fo
containers compile times have generally gotten slower from version to version.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Ben Gamari wrote:
>
>> So, if you would like to see your program's compilation time improve
>> in GHC 8.2, put some time into reducing it to something minima
Well, a few weeks ago Bertram Felgenhauer came up with a version of IO that
acts more like lazy ST. That could be just the thing. He placed it in the
public domain/CC0 and told me I could put it up on Hackage if I want. I'll
try to do that this week, but no promises. I could forward his email if yo
The state token is zero-width and should therefore be erased altogether in
code generation.
On May 14, 2016 4:21 PM, "Tyson Whitehead" wrote:
> On 14/05/16 02:31 PM, Harendra Kumar wrote:
>
>> The difference seems to be entirely due to memory pressure. At list size
>> 1000 both pure version and I
I strongly agree with per-declaration warning suppression. But I'd like to
leave both warnings on by default in -Wall.
1. Sometimes an upstream library will drop a constraint. The warning lets
me know I can drop it too.
2. Sometimes an implementation evolves from a draft that requires a
constrain
What makes
f do{x} do{y}
any harder to read than similar record syntax?
f Foo{foo=3} Foo{foo=4}
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Carter Schonwald
wrote:
> agreed -1,
> ambiguity is bad for humans, not just parsers.
>
> perhaps most damningly,
>>
>>
>> f do{ x } do { y }
>
>
> is just reallly re
The containers package uses the awkward double name approach. See, for
example, the way that Data.Map and Data.Sequence fuse (indexed) maps and
indexed) traversals. I know that Edward Kmett is very much opposed to
class-based rules as found in Control.Arrow because non-law-abiding
instances will be
tional erasure could cause "laziness safety" issues, but
the system would be essentially unusable without it.
4. What would the language extension do, exactly?
a. Automatically satisfy Seq for data types and families.
b. Propagate Seq constraints using the usual rules and the special
ec 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Index Int wrote:
>
>> There's a related GHC Proposal:
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:04 PM, David Feuer
>> wrote:
>> > In the Old Days (some time before Haskell 98), `s
There are some situations where we may want to use GND to derive some
class methods when it's not applicable to others. For example, some
people would very much like to add a join method to Monad, but doing
so would prevent GND from working for Monad. Similarly, the distribute
method of Data.Distri
m to have stable type argument order), things get
even more verbose.
On Jan 8, 2017 11:32 PM, "Joachim Breitner"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just responding to this one aspect:
>
> Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 21:16 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:
> > but using defaults for
> >
t;>= id)
This would allow users to just write
newtype Foo a = Foo ... deriving Monad
which would then be equivalent (using the notation you came up with) to
instance Monad Foo where
deriving newtype (>>=)
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-h
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree with David that using explicit `coerce`s can be quite verbose and
> may need ScopedTypeVariables and InstanceSigs. But visible type application
> should always work, because class methods always have a fixed type argument
> order.
slightly slower than
the underlying implementation. If the class author doesn't make such a
claim, I want users to have to be explicit about the methods derived by GND.
On Jan 12, 2017 8:01 AM, "Reid Barton" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:11 PM, David Feuer wrote:
>
he much more precise "Too many
snozzcumbers!" I've opened Trac #13117 to fix this, but I figured I should
double check that no one is opposed.
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell
uate a type with no
> inhabitants.
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, David Feuer wrote:
>>
>> Currently, if you write
>>
>> data V a deriving Functor
>>
>> GHC generates
>>
>> fmap _ _ = error "Void fmap"
>>
>> This seems qu
No. The part in quotes is the *name* of the rewrite rule, which is reported
to the user when GHC is called with things like -ddump-rule-rewrites and is
otherwise completely ignored.
On Jan 16, 2017 4:09 AM, "Erik de Castro Lopo" wrote:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> very little. The best one can do
This seems much too weird:
*> :set -XDeriveFoldable
*> data Foo a = Foo ((a,a),a) deriving Foldable
*> length ((1,1),1)
1
*> length $ Foo ((1,1),1)
3
I've opened Trac #13465 [*] for this. As I write there, I think the
right thing is to refuse to derive Foldable for a type whose Foldable
instance
nsistent to treat tuples as transparent and consider every component with
> type `a`, or is it more consistent to treat tuples as opaque and reuse the
> existing Foldable instance for tuples even if it might cause a compile time
> error?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 4:34 PM David Feuer
In the old days, DeriveDataTypeable enabled deriving both Data and
Typeable. As of a fairly recent GHC version (7.10? 8.0?), Typeable
instances are indeed derived automatically for all types that can get
such instances, so DeriveDataTypeable is only used for deriving Data
instances. I can't say whe
Have you gotten in touch with Joachim? I think he's touched that space in
the not too murky past.
On Aug 31, 2017 11:18 AM, "Yitzchak Gale" wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> I need a simple heap visualization for debugging purposes...
> >> Vacuum... has some long-outstanding PRs against it...
> >> that wer
I believe the answer is currently no. As I understand it, the entire
instance resolution mechanism drops away after type checking and is
therefore not available to the simplifier. So if you need to add a
constraint on the RHS of a rule, I think you're mostly out of luck. The
only thing I can think
I think this discussion would be more appropriate to the libraries list.
On Nov 9, 2017 11:05 AM, "Geraint Jones"
wrote:
> There are two things you might think of when you think of scanr;
> or rather, there are two things I think of: a specification
>
> scanr f e = map (foldr f e) . tail
I still haven't really digested what you've written, but I wish to pick a
nit (below)
On Nov 20, 2017 3:44 AM, "Anthony Clayden"
wrote:
> On Thu Nov 16 01:31:55 UTC 2017, David Feuer wrote:
...
> For (&&), the obvious things you'd want are ...
>
>
Suppose I have a function of type
unionWith# :: (Hashable k, Eq k) => (a -> a -> (# a #)) -> HashMap k a
-> HashMap k a -> HashMap k a
I can use this to implement strict and lazy unions with practically no
code duplication either in source or in generated code:
S.unionWith, L.unionWith ::
(Has
I don't see how 62 seconds rather than 60 is anything close to going off
the rails. Did I read something wrong? This sounds more like a minor wibble.
On Feb 28, 2018 10:32 AM, "Ben Gamari" wrote:
> Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev writes:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have a small ray-tracer project: http
> _Could_ happen but often doesn't raise a response. What if Github issues
> tracker just becomes another backwater where ideas go to get ignored?
>
>
> AntC
>
>
>>
>> | -Original Message-
>> | From: Glasgow-haskell-users > | boun...@haskell.org&g
I think the usual approach for defining these sorts of primitive operations
is to use unsafeCoerce.
On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:39 PM Conal Elliott wrote:
> When programming with GHC's type-level natural numbers and `KnownNat`
> constraints, how can one construct *evidence* of the result of comparis
> LT -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u < v) CompareLT
> > EQ -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u ~ v) CompareEQ
> > GT -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u > v) CompareGT
>
> If anyone has other techniques to suggest, I'd love to hear.
>
> -- Conal
&
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 PM Carter Schonwald
wrote:
>
> Hey David, i'm looking at the git history andit doesn't seem to have any
> commits between 8.4.3 and 8.4.4 related to the dataToTag issue
>
> does any haskell code in the while trigger the bug on 8.4 series?
I don't think anyone knows.
I've been playing around with 8.6.3, and I've really been appreciating the
improvements in typed hole messages. Both the information about constraints
and the suggestions for filling the holes have proven valuable in heavily
typish programming. Thanks! One thing that's still not where I'd like it t
So something like
newtype StablePtr a = StablePtr (StablePtrST RealWorld a)?
I suppose that could work with some discipline. You have to assume that
foreign code doesn't pick its address out of a hat and so something silly,
but I guess you pretty much have to assume that anyway.
On Wed, Aug 21,
You also need to avoid inspecting the StablePtr itself, which is just a
number, to maintain purity. The whole thing is a bit weird. Why do you want
this anyway?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 7:39 AM David Feuer wrote:
> So something like
>
> newtype StablePtr a = StablePtr (StablePtrST Re
I know that a frozen array doesn't have to be searched for elements in
a younger generation, but how does it differ from an unfrozen array
that hasn't been mutated since the last collection?
David
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-us
So I guess this is to avoid having to check the closure type on each
mutation to see if the array needs to be added to the mutable list?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:12 PM Bertram Felgenhauer via Glasgow-haskell-users
wrote:
> David Feuer wrote:
> > I know that a frozen array doesn
I'm looking to play around with an array-based structure with sub-linear
worst-case bounds. Array is pretty awkward in that context because creating
a new one takes O(n) time to initialize it. Is that all true of
newByteArray, or can I get one with arbitrary garbage in it for cheap?
___
" arrays of pointers, but
that would require a new heap object type, which would be a lot to ask for.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 8:56 PM Bertram Felgenhauer via Glasgow-haskell-users
wrote:
> David Feuer wrote:
> > I'm looking to play around with an array-based structure with
>
Will this be updated to the latest containers before release? It's two
versions behind at the moment.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 3:14 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The GHC team is very pleased to announce the availability of the first
> alpha release in the GHC 9.0 series. Source and binary d
I'm working on some code I want to be compatible with multiple GHC versions
and I'm trying to figure out which language extensions I can reasonably
use. I definitely need usable fancy pattern synonyms (not the bare-bones
ones in 7.8). So that should set a lower bound, but I don't remember where.
7.
ge-pragma-history
>
> PatternSynonyms was implemented in GHC 7.8, and TypeFamilyDependencies
> was implemented in GHC 8.0.
>
> Regards,
> Takenobu
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 2:08 AM David Feuer wrote:
> >
> > I'm working on some code I want to be compatible with multiple
`Char` is defined in user code. What you really can't define are Char# and
TYPE, and you can't modify `RuntimeRep`. Speaking of `Char#`, I see that in
9.0, at least, it has kind TYPE 'WordRep. Why is that not Word32Rep?
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021, 10:50 PM Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 1, 2021,
To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary.
They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes:
1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type.
2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`.
3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recur
etter, that would be great.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users *On
> Behalf Of *David Feuer
> *Sent:* 08 August 2021 09:37
> *To:* Anthony Clayden
> *Cc:* GHC users
> *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more
>
*this**
> instance till much later. So I still don’t get it. An example would
> clear it up.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* David Feuer
> *Sent:* 10 August 2021 12:01
> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones
> *Cc:* Anthony Clayden ; GHC users <
> glasgow-haskell-u
Have array and reference types and primos been updated to be
BoxedRep-polymorphic, or is it still just expensive scaffolding?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 6:01 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The GHC developers are very happy to announce the availability of the
> release cadidate of the 9.2.1 rele
One more question: is Solo exported from Data.Tuple yet, or do we still
have to depend on ghc-prim and import it from GHC.Magic? It would be really
nice to have that fixed by release, and it's so tiny.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 6:01 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The GHC developers are very ha
I mean GHC.Tuple, of course.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 8:14 PM David Feuer wrote:
> One more question: is Solo exported from Data.Tuple yet, or do we still
> have to depend on ghc-prim and import it from GHC.Magic? It would be really
> nice to have that fixed by release, and it's s
laining what and why you want it on
> a ghc ticket!
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:25 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> I would like that, along with the ability to bundle patterns with classes.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 1:13 PM Keith wrote:
>>
>>> Is there currentl
ep
> -1 is making up 1-2 toy examples and explaining what and why you want it on
> a ghc ticket!
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:25 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> I would like that, along with the ability to bundle patterns with classes.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 1:13 PM
No, fromList is too much. Consider
data Foo a = Foo (IORef String) [a]
deriving Foldable
What IORef should fromList use?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 2:44 AM Anthony Clayden
wrote:
> (Moving this discussion to glasgow-users. It's just not appropriate on the
> cafe.)
>
>
> > I am no longer a novice
To be clear, the proposal to allow different constraints was accepted, but
integrating it into the current, incredibly complex, code was well beyond
the limited abilities of the one person who made an attempt. Totally
severing pattern synonyms from constructor synonyms (giving them separate
namespa
M Edward Kmett wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:39 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> To be clear, the proposal to allow different constraints was accepted,
>> but integrating it into the current, incredibly complex, code was well
>> beyond the limited abilities of the o
Could you explain what you mean about the containers source not being
"clean"?
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 2:31 AM Jens Petersen wrote:
> First of all a big thank you and congratulations on the highly anticipated
> 9.0.2 release.
>
> I have been putting off this mail for a while:
> I actually built it
There's no such directory in the Hackage or GitHub source. I guess it must
have crept in on the GHC side?
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 4:13 AM Jens Petersen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 15:40, David Feuer wrote:
>
>> Could you explain what you mean about the containers source no
I can answer one of your questions for sure: the order of your case
branches doesn't matter at all. However, the order of the data constructors
in the type declaration does matter. Put your most likely one first.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, 9:09 PM Clinton Mead wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I'm developing an un
always an if/else chain in order of the constructor definition
> regardless of the order of the case statement so the higher up the list the
> better?
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM David Feuer wrote:
>>
>> I can answer one of your questions for sure: the order of you
he tag bits
> of constructors, which are a dense set?
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:59 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> You can ask, but someone else will have to answer. Sorry.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:52 PM Clinton Mead
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
Does this release include the fix for #22549 (infinite loops for some
undecidable instances)?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:36 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> The GHC developers are happy to announce the availability of GHC 9.4.4.
> Binary
> distributions, source distributions, and documentation are available
Excellent!
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 10:29 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> David Feuer writes:
>
> > Does this release include the fix for #22549 (infinite loops for some
> > undecidable instances)?
> >
> Yes, it includes a backport of !
I don't know what all that means exactly (especially since GHC's demand
signatures have changed recently in a way I don't understand at all). But
for hiding divergence, one option is to use a module with demand analysis
disabled. Try {-# options_ghc -fno-strictness #-}. You'll likely need to
put oo
What if you go with the big hammer for that module: -O0? My main concern
about that is that you won't get arity analysis. There may be some more -f
flags I've missed...
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:17 AM Michael Sperber
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 20 2023, David Feuer wrote:
>
> &
Actually, getting that arity probably isn't important anyway Try O0.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:26 AM David Feuer wrote:
> What if you go with the big hammer for that module: -O0? My main concern
> about that is that you won't get arity analysis. There may be some more -f
>
it. If it does not, I
would guess it would probably be fairly easy to add to the
end of the code generation phase.
David Feuer
This message has been brought to you by the letter alpha and the number pi.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL
What is arbitrarily ranked polymorphism? I don't
understand anything past rank 2... Is this arbitrarily
ranked polymorphism decidable?
This message has been brought to you by the letter alpha and the number pi.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing lis
s interrupted, and re-started with the
same input, calculation could presumably start at the
point it left off...). Of course, I have no clue how
realistic any of this is.
David Feuer
This message has been brought to you by the letter al
Anyone know if Okasaki plans to expand Edison to include efficient sets
and/or other non-heap collections? It looks like the library hasn't
changed for 2 years...
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Feuer
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Edison library
>
>
> Anyone know if Okasaki plans to expand Edison to include efficien
: You can get this with views, but it's more clunky that way.
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
What is IArray? This seems rather mysterious to me.
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
How much (quantitatively) is gained by using GCC for compilation? It
sure sounds like it causes a lot of trouble. How much better is it than
an optimizing assembler?
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002, Hal Daume III wrote:
> Why can I not define the following (in ghc):
>
> > class Foo p where
> > instance Foo Double where
> > foo :: Double -> (forall q . Foo q => q)
> > foo p = p
>
> >From my humble (lack of) knowledge, there seems to be nothing wrong here,
> but ghc (5.0
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I did wonder once whether IO monad bindings should be allowed at the
> top-level of a module, so you could say
>
> module M where
> ref <- newIORef 42
>
> and the top-level IO would be executed as part of the module
> initialization code.
See comments below.
On Sun, May 12, 2002, David Feuer wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002, Emre Tezel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I recently bought Simon Thompson's Haskell book. I have been doing the
> > exercises while I read on. There are couple questions that I ca
93 matches
Mail list logo