What is going on here? Is it already fixed in 6.1?
# uname -a
Linux denebola 2.4.19-4GB #2 Mon Mar 31 10:57:24 CEST 2003
i686 unknown
# ghc DynExcep.hs -c -fglasgow-exts
# ghci
___ ___ _
/ _ \ /\ /\/ __(_)
/ /_\// /_/ / / | | GHC Interactive, version 6.0, for
ATTENTION: THE PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN.
CEO/MD
First, may I solicit your confidentiality in this transaction, this by virtue of its
nature. I am Mr Lutherking taylor Jr, a cousin to the president Charles Taylor of
Liberia . As a result of the increasing rebel hostility in my country and the recent
The original message was received at Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:14:50 -0400 (EDT)
from [200.24.7.180]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: - The following
GHC just produced its first working binary on x86-64 :-D
$ uname -a
Linux amd64-linux1 2.4.19-SMP #1 SMP Thu Jul 17 21:37:10 UTC 2003 x86_64
unknown
$ cat hello.hs
import System.Info
main = print System.Info.arch print System.Info.os
$ ./ghc-6.0.1/ghc/compiler/stage1/ghc-inplace hello.hs
$ file
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:03:52PM +, Jonas Ritter wrote:
+ :: Intervall - Intervall - Intervall
(a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c,b+d)
In general this is insufficient because of floating point rounding.
The standard IEEE 754 rounding rule is the floating point equivalent
of rounding to
Thank you all for your help. I will try this ghc-flag.
It is interesting as well, that in contrast to Haskell Standard ML ensures,
that pattern-matches are exhaustive and irredundant.
Ciao,
Steffen
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 27-Aug-2003 Nick Name wrote:
-- First of all, a simple auxiliary function, so everything is
-- tail recursive
safetailaux :: [b] - ([b] - Int) - [b]
Apropos tailrecursive: I have the following question in mind
for some time: Rabhi/Lapalmes book about functional-styled
algorithms mention
Hello,
I do not completely understand the first part of chapter 3 of the
Haskell-report.
Concretely I am stumbling about the notation of nonterminals indexed by
their precedence
level. This should be a number ranging from 0 to 9. But what about this
exp^{10}
production rule?
I would be very
I do not completely understand the first part of chapter 3 of the
Haskell-report.
Concretely I am stumbling about the notation of nonterminals
indexed by
their precedence
level. This should be a number ranging from 0 to 9. But what
about this exp^{10} production rule?
The grammar is
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 08:47 Europe/Amsterdam, Steffen Mazanek
wrote:
Thank you all for your help. I will try this ghc-flag.
It is interesting as well, that in contrast to Haskell Standard ML
ensures,
that pattern-matches are exhaustive and irredundant.
SML has the same limitations
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Brandon writes
| An application of Mu should be showable if the functor maps showable
types
| to showable types, so the most natural way to define the instance
seemed
| to be
|
| instance (Show a = Show (f a)) = Show (Mu f) where
| show
G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:50:14PM -0400, Matthew Donadio wrote:
For the first case, I would vote for D and/or E as appropriate. For the
second case, I vote for (F) Ignore.
IMO, based on the result of this poll, we should develop some kind of
short FAQ (e.g. on the wiki) which we
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
My Haskell experiments have reached a size in which debugging tools would be
more than welcome, so I looked around, and was very disappointed. I tried
Hood, which is a pain to use (lots of editing of the code required), I looked
at Buddha but didn't
G'day all.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:25:43AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I suppose C is one way to do F, in particular by providing a working
program so complex and opaque that no first-year could possibly have
written it.
Uhm... yes.
I'm not sure I care much for politesse.
Understood
On Thursday 28 August 2003 07:05, Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
What are you trying to debug? I could write something that sounded more
relevant if I knew.
The usual kind of problem is getting a wrong result, caused by a typo
(misspelled constant, identifier, operator) or a not sufficiently
Konrad Hinsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Particular difficulties in Haskell:
- Conditional tracing. Suppose a function is called 1000 times but I am
interested in a particular intermediate result only when the third
argument is greater then three.
- Tracing a part of a value, say the
Me too, of course. But it isn't always easy to test a function in
isolation.
If it takes complex data structures as input, then the only reasonable way
to
provide that input may be calling it from another piece of the code.
Yes. Therefore the best thing is to codesign program and tests in
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:33:40AM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
I haven't tried QuickCheck yet, but I have my doubts as to its
suitability for numerical calculations, where you have to deal with
precision and rounding issues.
I'd still recommend trying it. In the worst case, you can just
the first line says that 'fname' is a function which takes a list and
returns a string. the list is of type '[([Char],a)]'. this means that
it's a list of ([Char],a)s. these are pairs of [Char]s and as. a
[Char] is a string (a string is a list of characters) and an a is a
something -- anything
Hello, Does anyone have a purely functional haskell implementation of a
threaded, balanced tree? I modified Okasaki's SML red-black tree
implementation, but my modifications mutate. I would be very interested in
seeing an approach that doesn't use mutability.
Thanks
Lex
--
Lex Stein
On Thursday 28 August 2003 04:25 am, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:50:14PM -0400, Matthew Donadio wrote:
There is a big difference between I am having some trouble with this
homework problem. This is what I did. Could someone give me some
tips? Thanks and How do I
At 17:27 26/08/03 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
My Haskell experiments have reached a size in which debugging tools would be
more than welcome, so I looked around, and was very disappointed. I tried
Hood, which is a pain to use (lots of editing of the code required), I looked
at Buddha but didn't
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:42:56AM +1200, Tom Pledger wrote:
I'm curious about what the people on this list consider appropriate,
as responses to homework questions. Even if there isn't a consensus,
it may be interesting to see how opinion is divided.
Please consider the following.
(A)
23 matches
Mail list logo
