Bugs item #1200026, was opened at 2005-05-11 17:28
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1200026group_id=8032
Category: hslibs/posix
Group: 6.4
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Bugs item #1199529, was opened at 2005-05-11 01:53
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1199529group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: 6.4
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Bugs item #1200592, was opened at 2005-05-12 05:34
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1200592group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution:
Bugs item #1200592, was opened at 2005-05-12 12:34
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonpj
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1200592group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
This turns out to have been a duplicate of [1199529] ghc --make panic
on fptools/ghc/compiler/Lexer.hs
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-bugs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
Feature Requests item #1084122, was opened at 2004-12-13 10:54
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by juhp
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=358032aid=1084122group_id=8032
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 5
Submitted By:
I sent a couple of bug reports to the glasgow-haskell-bugs list, and
I'm wondering why nobody seems to have responded yet. Should I have
used the sourceforge bug tracker? Are they maybe just hard? Am I just
being unreasonably impatient?
-- Thanks, Sam
Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judging from a quick glance, the code seems to marshal the
POSIX API:
type SockAddrLen = Int
data SockAddrT
type SockAddr = ForeignPtr SockAddrT
data SocketAddress = SA !SockAddr !SockAddrLen
I'm not sure whether that's a useful
Einar Karttunen writes:
Lifting [network address information] to Haskell level
seems quite pointless, as it is usually just fed back to
the C functions.
Well, I certainly _do_ need it.
The current way is to ignore adress families as much as
possible while still supporting multiple
Doctoral Studentships in Computing Science
Oxford University Computing Laboratory (CancerGrid)
Microsoft Research
Applications are invited for two doctoral studentships at the
University of Oxford, starting in October 2005, in the areas of:
* object models
* web services
The students will
Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lifting [network address information] to Haskell level
seems quite pointless, as it is usually just fed back to
the C functions.
Well, I certainly _do_ need it.
You can certainly get it:
getHost mySocketAddress niNumerichost
getServ
Einar Karttunen writes:
Well, I certainly _do_ need [a representation of network
addresses in Haskell].
You can certainly get it:
getHost mySocketAddress niNumerichost
getServ mySocketAddress niNumericserv
Um, yes, but 'String' isn't a very good representation for
manipulating network
Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[URIs might be the answer]
But what URI should represent e.g. unix datagram sockets?
I don't think it's worth even trying to hide both stream-
and packet-oriented services behind the same API. These are
completely different things, treated them
Einar Karttunen wrote:
But what URI should represent e.g. unix datagram sockets?
Having an URI connection function would be nice, but having
it as the primary alternative would not be very nice.
Could URI schemes like those in the Java Generic Connection Framework
(see:
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
But they don't differ in addressing. In BSD sockets the difference
between streams and packets lies in socket type, while addresses
are split into address families which bijectively correspond to
protocol families.
I believe there are
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But they don't differ in addressing. In BSD sockets the difference
between streams and packets lies in socket type, while addresses
are split into address families which bijectively correspond to
protocol families.
I believe there are some obscure
hey guys !
I´m pretty nu to haskell, and i got the following things to do:
code a client in python that sends string -done
code a server in haskell that recieves string - to do...
i initialized the server, set up a socket on port 9900,
so the socket is allready open...
First i read the
On behalf of the many, many contributors, I am pleased to announce
that the
Haskell Communities and Activities Report
(8th edition, May 2005)
http://www.haskell.org/communities/
is now available from the Haskell Communities home page in
Hi
I have put some comments and examples in the code now, and will continue
to do so as soon as i get time for it.
Please look at the code, and tell me if it is worth making into a part
of an official library. Or, even better, if someone has already done
this code, and in a better way.
You
On May 10, 2005, at 4:14 AM, Bo Herlin wrote:
Well, part of what I was doing was experimenting with what a library
like
this should look like, even more than what it should do. For some
reason,
I kind of like writing this:
*Math.Prime is Prime 42
False
instead of this:
Hi,
can someone give me an example of an arbitrary rank
polymorphism function?
Thanks
Jan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Thank you for saying what I was too lazy to say myself. :)
-- Lennart
Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 4:14 AM, Bo Herlin wrote:
Well, part of what I was doing was experimenting with what a library
like
this should look like, even more than what it should do. For some
Bernard Pope wrote:
Perhaps this section of the report might help:
From Section 4.3.2 Instance Declarations in the Haskell Report:
http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#instance-decls
If no binding is given for some class method then the corresponding
default class method
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernard Pope wrote:
Perhaps this section of the report might help:
From Section 4.3.2 Instance Declarations in the Haskell Report:
http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#instance-decls
If no binding is given for some
Samuel Bronson wrote:
Aren't the warnings just about as usefull as failures? Anyway, you
could always use the -Werrror flag for ghc...
In any case, I would not like to have to implement an entire typeclass
at once... it would interfere with incremental development.
Hmm. I guess I'm
Samuel Bronson wrote:
After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a
module) would probably not be easy, since it is such an indirect
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samuel Bronson wrote:
After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within a
module)
Samuel Bronson wrote:
The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
sound hard yet?
Compared to writing the rest of the compiler? No.
On 12/05/05, Greg Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samuel Bronson wrote:
The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
sound hard yet?
Greg Buchholz wrote:
Samuel Bronson wrote:
The former may not be hard, but the latter would require functions
with typeclass constraints on their types to be annotated in the
interface file with what typeclass methods they called. Does that
sound hard yet?
Compared to writing the rest of the
On behalf of the many, many contributors, I am pleased to announce
that the
Haskell Communities and Activities Report
(8th edition, May 2005)
http://www.haskell.org/communities/
is now available from the Haskell Communities home page in
G'day all.
Quoting Jan-Willem Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why not use a function?
What's wrong with a function?
There no need to go leaping for a multiparameter type class with a
functional dependency! Just use a function.
[With apologies to John Cleese]
A reasonable question, and one
32 matches
Mail list logo
