Since there occurred problems with e-mail delivery, i am sorry,
i repeat the two bug reports for ghc-4-i386-linux.
--
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
1. The reduced `panic' example:ghc -c Bug.hs
ft
Lenart was right.
I am sorry, indeed, toZ :: Integral a = a - Z
toZ = toInteger
helps. I recalled, exactly this was the initial bug program.
But sorry, probably, i had confused something.
Still, why moving toZ = toInteger :: Integral a = a - Z
to another module
Lenart was right.
I am sorry, indeed, toZ :: Integral a = a - Z
toZ = toInteger
helps. I recalled, exactly this was the initial bug program.
But sorry, probably, i had confused something.
Still, why moving toZ = toInteger :: Integral a = a - Z
to another
class MetaData a where
constructorName::a-String
mapArgs::(MetaData b,MonadPlus c) = (b-c)-a-[c]
results in the error
Illegal type "[c]" in constructor application
If I replace MonadPlus with Show or Num there is no error.
(Replacing MonadPlus with Monad also result in an error)
Felix Schroeter wrote:
newtype IntFunnilyOrdered = IFO Int
instance Ord IntFunnilyOrdered where compare ...
int_from_ifo (IFO x) = x
map int_from_ifo $ sort $ map IFO l
Ideally, the compiler should figure out that map IFO and map
int_from_ifo are essentially noops, except changing the
At 14:15 + 98/10/24, Simon Marlow wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider the function
t :: T a = T a - T a
I think that it's far from clear what each of the T's mean!
Worse, in Haskell 2 we'll also have
t :: T T = T a - T a
In (T T) one is class and
Consider the function
t :: T a = T a - T a
I think that it's far from clear what each of the T's mean!
Worse, in Haskell 2 we'll also have
t :: T T = T a - T a
In (T T) one is class and the other is a type constructor.
Let's leave the language as it is: class names and
At 14:30 + 98/10/26, Peter Thiemann wrote:
Haskell translates f f = f into f := f |- f; on the right hand side
"f" is a bound variable, on the left hand side "f" is a name. Suppose I
inidicate variables with a slash, then the formula would read
f := \f |- \f
or f(\f) := \f.
I don't
One more quick comment, and then I think I (at least) am done (to the
extent that the difference in opinion is clearly defined).
Fergus Henderson writes:
And, again IMHO, it is the task of the language to *define* the
encapsuation (or to allow that encapsulation to be defined), and
I wrote the following function that attempts to generalize show by
allowing the user to choose the function to stringify constructor
arguments.
stringArgs' sep stringer1 (MyFoo x i s) =
x' ++sep++i' ++ sep ++ s'
where
x'=stringer' x
i'=stringer'' i
"Alex" == S Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex I wrote the following function that attempts to generalize show by
Alex allowing the user to choose the function to stringify constructor
Alex arguments.
stringArgs' sep stringer1 (MyFoo x i s) =
x' ++sep++i'
In other words, you are saying that I want a feature, first class
polymorphism, that is now available in Hugs1.3c and from the docs,
GHC4.0?.
Since I am doing development in Hugs 1.4, I guess the question is when
will Hugs1.4 have this feature and is this feature
compatible with Derive?
Alex In other words, you are saying that I want a feature, first class
Alex polymorphism, that is now available in Hugs1.3c and from the docs,
Alex GHC4.0?.
Yes.
Alex Since I am doing development in Hugs 1.4, I guess the question is when
Alex will Hugs1.4 have this feature
Felix Schroeter wrote:
for instance, i could want to sort a list,
according to two different criteria,
using two different instances of Ord.
newtype IntFunnilyOrdered = IFO Int
instance Ord IntFunnilyOrdered where
compare (IFO x) (IFO y) | even x even y = compare x y
"Hans" == Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not different logical entities, all occurrences of f are variables.
Hans Different occurrences of f have different semantic meaning (that is, the
Hans "f" in one place is not the same as the "f" in another place).
All I'm
15 matches
Mail list logo
