Re: High-level technique for program options handling

2004-01-20 Thread Alastair Reid
> I'm not certain this applies, but it should be > possible > to force evaluation order with a technique similar to > deepSeq. It might be cleaner than using IO. I think in this case, I'd prefer to use the IO monad. 1) It keeps the sequencing very, very explicit and not likely to be confused

Re: High-level technique for program options handling

2004-01-20 Thread JP Bernardy
> > I have a question about error reporting. You use > 'error' quite often. I > > think that this can cause errors to pop up at > strange moments during > > program evaluation. It this a real problem? I > prefer reporting errors > > early in the IO monad. I think there is some > trade-off involved

Re: High-level technique for program options handling

2004-01-20 Thread Alastair Reid
> I have a question about error reporting. You use 'error' quite often. I > think that this can cause errors to pop up at strange moments during > program evaluation. It this a real problem? I prefer reporting errors > early in the IO monad. I think there is some trade-off involved, but I > can't

Re: Compiling HXML toolbox under Hugs/Windows

2004-01-20 Thread Graham Klyne
At 16:12 16/01/04 +0100, Uwe Schmidt wrote: Graham Klyne wrote: > I've been trying to compile the HXML toolbox, version 3.01 > (http://www.fh-wedel.de/~si/HXmlToolbox/HXmlToolbox-3.01.tar.gz), using the > experimental Unicode version of Hugs, and have encountered a few source > code problems that

Re: High-level technique for program options handling

2004-01-20 Thread Tomasz Zielonka
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:17:42PM +, Alastair Reid wrote: > On Sunday 18 January 2004 15:42, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > > [much explanation of his option processing approach elided] > > Interesting technique - lots of cool ideas there. Thanks :-) > I too find getOpts to be a great base but ha