I get the following error with one of my programs.
ghc5.00: fatal error: interpretBCO: unknown or unimplemented opcode
Is it a bug? I am using i386-unknown-linux binary on SuSE 7.0.
Thanks,
Saswat
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL
We've just fixed some -funbox-strict-field bugs, so
this be ok once the changes are checked in.
They *wont* be in GHC 5.00.1, but will be in GHC 5.02
Thanks for reporting htis
simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 20 April 2001 14:24
Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes:
[Some interesting points on functional wrappings of graphics libraries]
Has anyone considered writing a haskell wrapper for SDL - Simple
Directmedia Layer at http://www.libsdl.org ?
This is a cross platform library intended for writing games, and aims
for a high
Hi all,
knowing that the Haskell library report is currently being rewritten, I
would like to propose a new function for module List that generalizes
the current function partition :: (a - Bool) - [a] - [[a]] in the
following way:
partition :: Eq b = (a - b) - [a] - [[a]]
partition _ [] = []
Hi
I'v currently working on a school-project where I have
to describe the Haskell programming language.
I've been looking through Monads and especially the IO
monad, the Maybe monad and the list monad
My question is why are monads necessary in the
language ?
Is it not possible to construct
At 2001-05-17 01:25, Mads Skagen wrote:
My question is why are monads necessary in the
language ?
Is it not possible to construct the features provided
by Monads using basic functional constructs ?
Monads themselves are made purely out of basic functional constructs.
What do I gain using
Thank you for your reply.
So what you are saying is that I actually don't need
Monads to perform the tasks Monads supports ?
Thank you very much.
Regards Skagen
__
Går mail for langsomt for dig?
Så prøv Yahoo! Messenger - her kan du i
Ashley Yakeley answer to Mads Skagen:
My question is why are monads necessary in the
language ?
Is it not possible to construct the features provided
by Monads using basic functional constructs ?
Monads themselves are made purely out of basic functional constructs.
What do I gain
At 2001-05-17 02:03, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Monads are *much* more universal than that. They are convenient patterns
to code the non-determinism (lazy list monads), to generalize the concept
of continuations, to add tracing, exceptions, and all stuff called
computation by the followers of
So what you are saying is that I actually don't need
Monads to perform the tasks Monads supports ?
Indeed. However, not using the Monadic do syntax results in
hardly-readible code. For an explanation of how monads can
be written in a functional way, see
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Bernd [iso-8859-2] Holzmüller wrote:
This partitioning function builds equivalence classes from the list
argument, where each element list within the result list consists of
elements that all map to the same value when applying f to it.
Thus: partition (`div` 2) [1..5]
Can anyone shed some light on the following error? Thanks in advance.
isSorted :: Ord a = [a] - Bool
isSorted [] = True
isSorted [x] = True
isSorted (x1:x2:xs)
| x1 = x2 = isSorted (x2:xs)
| otherwise = False
Hugs session for:
/usr/local/share/hugs/lib/Prelude.hs
Ashley Yakeley comments:
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Monads are *much* more universal than that. They are convenient patterns
to code the non-determinism (lazy list monads), to generalize the concept
of continuations, to add tracing, exceptions, and all stuff called
computation by the
David Scarlett wrote:
Can anyone shed some light on the following error? Thanks in advance.
isSorted :: Ord a = [a] - Bool
isSorted [] = True
isSorted [x] = True
isSorted (x1:x2:xs)
| x1 = x2 = isSorted (x2:xs)
| otherwise = False
[...]
Main isSorted []
Monads are used not only for programming IO, state, exceptions etc, but also
are the foundation of lists. It is hard to imagine functional programming
without this basic datatype. Sets, Bags, trees etc are also monads. Phil
Wadler wrote a very useful paper Comprehending Monads which I notice
Title: Wadler (was RE: Monads)
There have been several references to a paper by
Wadler in this thread- some folks (well, at least
one folk :) on this list may not be familiar with
the work surrounding Haskell yet, and (from this context)
This paper seems like a pretty good place to start.
I should probably mention that one doesn't need to know that a list is a
monad in order to use a list. However, understanding that a list obeys the
monad laws is a useful way to learn about monads.
--PeterD
-Original Message-
From: Peter Douglass
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:26
BABEL'01
FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS
First Workshop on Multi-Language
Infrastructure and Interoperability
http://research.microsoft.com/~nick/babel01.htm
Satellite to PLI'01
Firenze, Italy,
8th September 2001
Submission Deadline: 1st June 2001
** The Submission Site
Greeting, I'm a
last year student in a computer science field. I'm currently trying to code an
implementation for a compression using basic Lempel-zif technique. I use a Trie
(retrieval)as a data structure for the dynamic dictionary aplication. The
problem is Trie uses not just an ordinary
Hello!
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 11:57:45AM +0200, Rijk-Jan van Haaften wrote:
So what you are saying is that I actually don't need
Monads to perform the tasks Monads supports ?
Indeed. However, not using the Monadic do syntax results in
hardly-readible code.
I don't really think so. The
I rather agree with Matt's message below.
I'm desperately trying NOT to change the H98 libraries, but this
is a very non-disruptive change, as he points out,
and it does lift two apparently-unnecessary restrictions.
a) Remove Ord from Ix's superclasses
b) Add rangeSize to Ix's methods
Does
Hello,
I was trying to write an abstraction for bidirectional communication
between two threads. For some reason, MVars seem to break:
---
class Cords c t u where
newCord :: IO (c t u)
listen :: c t u - IO t
speak :: c t u - u - IO ()
this is just how I understand things at the moment, if I am wrong
or misleading anywhere then please speak up.
I am unconvinced that such generalizations must come as speed hits, but
perhaps someone can enlighten me. compilers seem to support seperate
compilation and polymorphism at the moment
Thu, 17 May 2001 10:06:55 +0200, Bernd Holzmüller [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
I would like to propose a new function for module List that generalizes
the current function partition :: (a - Bool) - [a] - [[a]]
No, current partition has type (a - Bool) - [a] - ([a], [a])
so your function is not
17 May 2001 19:36:44 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
PS. What I would perhaps put into standard library:
And also:
split :: (a - Bool) - [a] - [[a]]
split p c = let
(xs, ys) = break p c
in xs : case ys of
[] - []
_:zs -
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
At 2001-05-17 02:03, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Monads are *much* more universal than that. [...]
[...] Imperative programming is just one facet of the true story.
Perhaps, but mostly monads are used to model imperative actions. And
their use in imperative programming
M. Faisal Fariduddin Attar Nasution wrote:
Greeting, I'm a last year student in a computer science field. I'm
currently trying to code an implementation for a compression using
basic Lempel-zif technique. I use a Trie (retrieval) as a data
structure for the dynamic
On 2001-05-17T09:35:19-0400, Joe Bowers wrote:
There have been several references to a paper by
Wadler in this thread- some folks (well, at least
one folk :) on this list may not be familiar with
the work surrounding Haskell yet, and (from this context)
This paper seems like a
Mon, 14 May 2001 20:26:21 -0700, Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
class (MonadPlus (p s v)) = Parser p where
item :: p s v v
force :: p s v a - p s v a
first :: p s v a - p s v a
papply :: p s v a - s - [(a,s)]
This MonadPlus superclass can't be
29 matches
Mail list logo
