Hi,
I am getting an undefined reference error listed
below when I try to
build my program. I am able to successfully compile
and link a trivial
Hello World program, but not my application code.
I tried 3 different versions of ghc (5.04.3, 6.0 and
6.0.1) on my
redhat-9 linux pc. The
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ben Rudiak-Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now we have something almost the same as the current implicit-parameter
system, except that it behaves in a much safer and saner way.
Hmm... you have this:
[?x,?x] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK
[?x] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK
First of all, thanks for reading my proposal, and I apologize for the
ill-considered rant which preceded it. I hope you won't hold it against
me -- we should all be on the same side here.
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
((let g = \_ _ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x in ((g ([EMAIL
I just noticed something interesting. Consider
f #name = g where g #name = hello
This apparently has type (#name :: a) - (#name :: b) - String. Should
the two #names be merged? Clearly not, because ordinary positional
parameters never get merged, and named parameters are supposed to be the
simonmar:
We are pleased to announce a new patchlevel release of the Glasgow
Haskell Compiler (GHC), version 6.0.1.
GHC 6.0.1 is now in the OpenBSD ports tree as lang/ghc,
for x86 only at the moment.
Make sure your ports tree is up to date, and, e.g.:
cd /usr/ports/lang/ghc make
I kinda think someone mentioned this, perhaps even you. Or maybe I'm
thinking of something else. As I'm feeling too lazy to check the
archives, at the risk of saying something stupid or repeating something
said, you may want to look at named instances (google should turn
something up with a
Peter Thiemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
I recently had my first exposure to Haskell's FFI when I was trying to
compute MD5 and SHA1 hashes using the existing C implementations. In
each case, the idea is to make the hash function available as function
md5 :: String - String
However, the
At 2003-08-03 14:09, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
((let g = \_ _ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x in ((g ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x)) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] = 2})) ([EMAIL PROTECTED] -
@x))[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1}
((let g = \_ _ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x in (g 2)) ([EMAIL PROTECTED] -
@x))[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
At 2003-08-03 14:09, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
g ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x) = ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - g { @x = @x } @x)
Hmm... I assume you mean specifically this:
g ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - @x)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (g { @x = @x } @x)
Supposing
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Derek Elkins wrote:
I kinda think someone mentioned this, perhaps even you. Or maybe I'm
thinking of something else. As I'm feeling too lazy to check the
archives, at the risk of saying something stupid or repeating something
said, you may want to look at named instances
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there any reason why
show :: String - String
is not equivalent to 'id' ?
At the moment,
show one = \one\
which leads to problems because it often
requires String to be treated as a special case,
rather than just a member of Show.
Tom
11 matches
Mail list logo
