Hey:
In attempting to build ghc-3.02 I get the following
error as a result of 'make boot':
make[2]: execvp: ghc-2.10: Too many symbolic links encountered
make[2]: *** [depend] Error 127
make[1]: *** [boot] Error 1
make: *** [boot] Error 1
Have I perhaps mis-installed something previously?
In any case, I hope that Simon will follow his urge to get Standard
Haskell done with Real Soon Now, even if there is no overwhelming
consensus on certain issues, so that we can then concentrate on Haskell
2.
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even
That said, the more I think about it, I don't really believe that
"Standard Haskell" will accomplish much. The fact is that everyone
wants many of the features in Haskell 2, and so even today would prefer
using an implementation that is probably not fully compliant with
anything that is
On 04-Aug-1998, Felix Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
instance Eq t = Eq (Complexify t) where
(Complexify (r1,i1)) == (Complexify (r2,i2)) = (r1 == r2) (i1 == i2)
(Complexify (r1,i1)) /= (Complexify (r2,i2)) = (r1 /= r2) (i1 /= i2)
The second "" there should be "||".
Or better, just
[To give people that use threaded e-mail readers a helping hand,
I'd like to encourage posters to use followup/reply when responding,
so that the desired headers are included. -moderator]
Discussing the Numbers in Haskell.
I wrote
Not only Complex but the Real numbers too are impossible to
I think all this discussion about numerics in Haskell is great. I'm convinced
that designing good libraries is a major creative act, not just an add-on to a
language; and that the existence of good libraries has a big effect on how much
use a language gets. ('Good' means both having a
Simon writes:
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that was less grand and
At 00:00 +0200 98/08/04, Felix Schroeter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
So, why not add a type "Complexify(R)" of a ring R to Haskell?
Note that you can't divide in a ring. A type class *roughly* corresponding
to a ring is probably Num.
Sure you can
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that
At 10:12 +0200 98/08/04, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's not only people who use Haskell for teaching that want stability.
If you've used Haskell for some real project where the current Haskell
is adequate
...
I think Standard Haskell is a good thing since it opens up
the possibility of making
Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on
"Rambling on numbers in Haskell"
So, why not add a type "Complexify(R)" of a ring R to Haskell?
Note that you can't divide in a ring. A type class *roughly* corresponding
to a ring is probably Num.
Sure you can
Hi everybody,
In the discussion about numerics in Haskell, several people are apparently
assuming that you can't compute with real numbers, and that computers must
approximate real numbers using either floating point or rationals.
However, it isn't true that computers cannot handle real
On the subject of standards, all that is needed from my own personal point of
view is a statement in the Haskell report saying how long the current version
is guaranteed to remain in force. Why can't we start right now by putting one
on Haskell 1.4, even if it only says "demise imminent"?
On
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that was less grand and final-sounding
Lennart wrote:
It's not only people who use Haskell for teaching that want stability.
If you've used Haskell for some real project where the current Haskell
is adequate (which, IMHO, is quite a few) you may not want to rewrite
gazillion lines of code.
I'd like to second that. I have two
Simon PJ:
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that was less grand and
The time has come, after many years of varied pleasures, for me to
unsubscribe from the Haskell mailing list.
I have tried sending unsubscribe messages to both haskell.org and
Glasgow, and have tried contacting their postmaster. All to no avail.
Can someone please get me off this list?
I've
John O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
However, it isn't true that computers cannot handle real numbers. There
have been several papers on exact real arithmetic ...
The idea is to use lazy representations of unbounded data
structures, such as continued fractions, to represent a real
Sergey Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only one has to prepare to script
let {real1 =...; real2 =...} in real1==real2
and obtain error "cannot solve real1==real2 ..."
or, maybe, an infinite loop - both at run time.
We guess, why:
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that was less grand and
John O'Donnell writes:
The Floating types should be called Floating, and the name Real
should be reserved for numbers that actually obey the algebraic
laws for real numbers.
Here's an issue with the naming scheme proposed above: how many
non-mathematician users will become confused by
Hello,
"Hans" == Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hans The idea with calling the floating numbers floating numbers
Hans is that it is possible to implement real numbers too, as in
Hans computer algebra programs.
we have to distinguish between 3 sets:
(1) The set of
At 16:15 +0100 98/08/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Wadler:
I believe that David A. Turner (of Miranda fame) has an EPSRC
grant to develop arbitrary precision real libraries in Haskell.
Is "arbitrary precision" the same as true real numbers --- or does
it just mean "for this run of the
23 matches
Mail list logo
