Dear Merijn,
Do you even need a separate extension or filename convention for this? Can't
you just call it lhs and expand the definition thereof to include markdown? (I
suggested something similar before, but objections were raised that having too
good and too broad an unlitter might lead to
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for your suggestion. I had considered it earlier and decided against it
for the extra dependencies. Maybe I was too picky there. I will give it another
go. Could there possibly be a subset of hermit that plugin-writers could depend
on, but that have fewer dependencies? I
Dear GHC-ers,
I'm working on a plugin for GHC that should help compile the library with which
this plugin is to ship. What this plugin does is traverse the CoreProgram(s) to
find things of types defined in my library and optimizes them. I have worked
out how to find things, but I was wondering
I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor’s paper) was
to restore some function-application-style to the whole effects-thing, i.e. it
was the very point *not* to resort to binds or do-notation.
That being said, I’m all for something that will promote the use of the name
Well, my tcLocalBinds seems to have a different type then yours (this is from
my copy of 7.6.3 and it's the same in the HEAD that I just synced):
tcLocalBinds :: HsLocalBinds Name - TcM thing - TcM (HsLocalBinds TcId, thing)
If I want to get a GblEnv out, I can use getGblEnv, but doing this:
I feel so unbelievably ignorant now. I thought with all the IORefs in the type
checking process that zonking did this in these refs. Somehow I started
thinking that some of these remained in SDocs, not thinking showSDoc is pure
and results in a String, which holds no IORefs.
Does this mean
Dear GHC-ers,
I'm working on building an interactive environment around the composition of
expressions. Users can type in (i.e. give strings of) expressions and can then
use these expressions to produce other expressions. I'm close to having a
working GHC-API binding for this. The resulting
I've also been experiencing this a lot in class instances, such as:
class Foo f where
foo :: a - f a
data Bar f a = Foo f = Bar {bar :: f a}
instance Foo (Bar f) where
foo a = Bar (foo a)
Is there any way to avoid repeating the Foo f constraint in the Bar f
instance?
Dear Thomas,
Thanks for your reply. If all else fails, this could be the way to go, but if
at all possible, I would like to get rid of the file-idea ;)
Maybe it helps if I make things slightly more concrete. Like I said, I'm
building an interactive user interface. In this interface, users
Dear GHC-ers,
The current API *seems* to assume that all different stages of the compiler
pipeline are always passed successively (with the exception of the interleaving
of the renamer and the type checker for the sake of Template Haskell), in other
words, it is assumed all parsing has been
L.S.,
Apologies for multiple copies, please forward to whomever you deem appropriate.
Please find enclosed the Call for Participation for the Second International
Workshop on Trends in Functional Programming In Education (TFPIE).
Since the closing of submissions, we have come up with a
L.S.,
Apologies for any duplicates you may receive.
EasyChair now open! [3]
Please find below the Third Call for Papers for the Second International
Workshop on Trends in Functional Programming In Education (TFPIE). As an
addendum to previous CfPs for this event, I would like you to consider
L.S.,
Apologies for any duplicates you may receive.
Please find below the Second Call for Papers for the Second International
Workshop on Trends in Functional Programming In Education (TFPIE).
Since the first CfP, we have confirmed that the proceedings will be published
in the
+1
Ph.
-Original Message-
From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
Sent: donderdag 7 februari 2013 15:01
To: Geoffrey Mainland
Cc: parallel-hask...@googlegroups.com;
14 matches
Mail list logo
