I tried this under Linux (debian, using ghc 5.02.2). It compiled OK,
but produced an executable that dumped core immediately on
startup. :-(
For what it's worth, here is as much info. as I could glean from gdb:
Starting program: /home/frp/afrp/src/testST
Program received signal
Simon Marlow wrote:
Profiling has received significant attention since we branched 5.02, but
I'm not aware of any segfault-type bugs in the 5.02 profiling
implementation. Could you perhaps send your sources and we'll look into
it (and the Win2k problem you had)?
Certainly.
We've just
Hi,
This is more of a question than a bug report, so my appologies for using
what is probably the wrong email list.
Henrik Nilsson and I have just invested considerable effort in trying to
write portable, complete Makefiles for compiling and installing some of
our Haskell libraries with ghc
You have to give more details than this; GHC does support
both '/' and '\' as path separator (but, of course, doesn't understand
nonsense like /cygdrive prefixes).
That GHC doesn't depend on cygwin is a feature, not a bug
(but if you want it to, you can compile it up for that 'platform'
Hi all,
This message should maybe have been posted to a cygwin
mailing list, but I figured I would get a quicker answer
here.
I have sucessfully installed the latest GHC on my (new)
Windows laptop.
I have also installed cygwin a while ago, and I really like
it. (I am doing all my work from a
It's high on my to-do list because it so nearly Works Right,
but I have to make it possible to detect when you have
got to a data constructor, or a field thereof.
The more people who ask the faster it will get done...
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Till Mossakowski [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi,
If you want to build GHC in different ways, eg. with ticky-ticky profiling
on, you can do it by setting GhcLibWays=t. This make two versions of
all the library .o files and .a files, a normal one, and a ticky-ticky
one.
My question is: can you stop it from making the normal one?
Thanks
Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..
I have sucessfully installed the latest GHC on my (new)
Windows laptop.
I have also installed cygwin a while ago, and I really like
it. (I am doing all my work from a cygwin shell.)
The problem is that control-C is interpreted differently
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:15:51AM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
It's high on my to-do list because it so nearly Works Right,
but I have to make it possible to detect when you have
got to a data constructor, or a field thereof.
The more people who ask the faster it will get done...
I
| Just before Section D.1 there is the sentence
|
| When inferring the context for the derived instances, type
| synonyms must be expanded out first.
|
| I don't understand it. Which type synonyms need expansion?
Consider
type Foo a = [a]
data T a = MkT (Foo a) deriving( Eq
In any case, I propose to change Integral to Ord and Num.
I agree. And nhc98 seems to actually implement this.
Nonetheless I find using n+k patterns for floating point numbers pretty
horrible. And it raises the question why k cannot be a rational ...
But then n+k patterns are a wart anyway.
| Btw., in 3.17.2 Informal Semantics of Pattern Matching
| the end of the following sentence should be changed:
Actually I've changed the entire wording of that section
in consultation with Ross who has read it rather carefully.
You can find the current draft of the expressions chapter at
| On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:36:56AM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| The Haskell Report says of n+k patterns:
|
| A n+k pattern can only be matched against a value in
| the class Integral.
|
| This seems far too strong. All that is needed are Ord (for the =)
| and Num (for - and
| Hugs demands Integral because that's what it was told to do
| to follow the report. So in that sense, yes, the code
| depends on having only one class. But it would be easy for
| someone to change that.
|
| Then again, if we're following the rules of minimal change
| for Haskell 98, then
Well, it was a deliberate decision to limit the n+k pattern to class Integral
because people at that time felt that n+k was something that should
only be used with integers. So it's not a fluke, it was quite deliberate.
I kind of like Integral for this (as much as I can like anything about n+k
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Hugs demands Integral because that's what it was told to do
| to follow the report. So in that sense, yes, the code
| depends on having only one class. But it would be easy for
| someone to change that.
|
| Then again, if we're following the rules of minimal
In the following code, will other things be executed or the return ()
will end function f? I guess the answer is yes (other things WILL be
executed anyway), but I'd like to understand why won't the return () be
the [state change/result produced] created by f.
f :: IO ()
f = do
-- lots of
How do I find the implementation of the module ST?
In the GHC documentation, I can only find the signatures of the
functions.
In the following code, will other things be executed or the return ()
will end function f? I guess the answer is yes (other things WILL be
executed anyway), but I'd like to understand why won't the return () be
the [state change/result produced] created by f.
f :: IO ()
f = do
--
Hi again,
Forgot to mention this in my last email. I find myself writing a lot
of if-then-elses in do notation, and most often the else branch is return ().
This gets a bit cumbersome to write and messes up the code.
So now I tend to use:
doIf :: Monad a = Bool - [a b] - a ()
doIf b e =
On 29-Jan-2002, Andre W B Furtado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the following code, will other things be executed or the return ()
will end function f? I guess the answer is yes (other things WILL be
executed anyway), but I'd like to understand why won't the return () be
the [state
Hello Haskell friends:
I am looking for anybody that has information on Haskell WebServers.
Currently I understand that Simon Marlow has built a 1500 line Web Server
that does extremely well.
My question is has anybody else out there built a web server ? and if so does
it contain similar
Forgot to mention this in my last email. I find myself writing a lot
of if-then-elses in do notation, and most often the else branch is return ().
This gets a bit cumbersome to write and messes up the code.
There's also the Monad library http://haskell.org/onlinelibrary/monad.html
that
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any thumb rule for using arrays? I'm expecting access to be
O(1), it is right?
In GHC, yes.
(Shouldn't this really be required? I mean, the whole
*point* of using
arrays is to have O(1) random access, isn't it?)
Can we also rely on
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can we also rely on destructive updates for the monadic arrays?
In GHC, yes :-)
Goodie!
One more question: I imagine arrays give an opportunity to optimize by
unboxing the contained type -- any chance of that? How much space
would an array of Chars
Oops,
Thanks to Kevin who pointed out:
when :: (Monad m) = Bool - m () - m ()
when p s = if p then s else return ()
unless :: (Monad m) = Bool - m () - m ()
unless p s= when (not p) s
So now I tend to use:
doIf :: Monad a = Bool - [a b] - a ()
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Bernard James POPE wrote:
(snip)
when :: (Monad m) = Bool - m () - m ()
when p s = if p then s else return ()
unless :: (Monad m) = Bool - m () - m ()
unless p s= when (not p) s
(snip)
That's cute. People post all sorts of handy
I think the Haskell Wiki was going to be the place to collect
interesting code fragments.
However, I must add that these functions are already part of the
Haskell 98 standard. See the Monad module in the Library Report.
cheers
k
Mark Carroll writes:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Bernard James
28 matches
Mail list logo
