Sigbjorn Finne replies to me:
Wouldn't it be a little neater for the installation script to relink or
remove the "old" ghc, at least in the case that it really is just a
symbolic link?
(I'm assuming you're talking about binary distributions, since the
"install" Makefile rules in the
Please, what is wrong here?
module T where
class S a where s :: a - a
class S a = OS a where o :: a - a
class S a = R a where r :: a - a
data F a = F a a
instance R a = S (F a) where s x = x
Alex Ferguson writes:
Sigbjorn Finne replies to me:
Wouldn't it be a little neater for the installation script to relink or
remove the "old" ghc, at least in the case that it really is just a
symbolic link?
(I'm assuming you're talking about binary distributions, since the
Alex Ferguson writes:
This is a re-send, apologies if it turns up twice.
Ghc builds and sinstalls smoother than other, apart from one _leetle_
glitch, which still requires (minimal) manual intervention:
ln -s ghc-3.02 /usr/local/bin/ghc
ln: cannot create /usr/local/bin/ghc: File
On 10-Jun-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that experts on implementing lazy languages can tell you about
the problems of implementing C++ "zero-overhead" exceptions (though
logically equivalent to an exception monad) into a lazy language like
Haskell.
There's little point
On 10-Jun-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:09 +1000 98/06/11, Fergus Henderson wrote:
There's little point trying to implement C++-like so-called "zero-overhead"
exceptions in any language with garbage collection. It would
probably result in a performance loss.
This is
On 10-Jun-1998, S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like what I wanted. Just a few questions:
* A value of Haskell type T can be
EITHER one of the values we know and love
(bottom, or constructor, or function,
depending on T),
Folks,
There's a new mailing list about the implementation and use
of Glasgow Parallel Haskell (GpH). GpH is included with
most releases of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler since ghc
0.29.
More information on GpH is available at
Folks,
There's a new mailing list about the implementation and use
of Glasgow Parallel Haskell (GpH). GpH is included with
most releases of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler since ghc
0.29.
More information on GpH is available at
On 10-Jun-1998, S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Fergus Henderson wrote:
It would make debugging easier if the exception picked was consistent
accross implementations. It doesn't matter which one, but it does matter
that it is the same. (maybe you
One of the wonderful things about functional languages is that they
do not prescribe the order of evaluation. To achieve the effect you
want would require us to completely prescribe that order, with very
bad effects on efficiency. For example, consider
...
But if we are required to ensure
I was keeping quiet myself, because I am planning to write
a paper touching on this topic. But the cat seems to be
mostly out of the bag now, so I might as well pipe up.
I'm glad you did. That's a neat idea. I'm familiar
with the NDSet idea -- that's in the Hughes/O'Donnell
paper that
Just to reiterate. I strongly urge you to ensure consistent exception
behavior. As a matter of course, two different compiles should not result
in two different programs.
One of the wonderful things about functional languages is that they
do not prescribe the order of evaluation. To
13 matches
Mail list logo
