Manuel M. T. Chakravarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[received message twice]
Am I just the only one or does everybody receive
messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] twice? I find
it a bit (I know I am exaggerating) annoying.
Is there a way to avoid this?
Regards,
Marc
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Why? This makes composing and subtyping impossible:
instance (MonadTrans t, MonadState s m, Monad (t m))
= MonadState s (t m) where
get = lift get
put = lift . put
This instance is illegal anyway. One of types in the instance head
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:14:24PM +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Why? This makes composing and subtyping impossible:
instance (MonadTrans t, MonadState s m, Monad (t m))
= MonadState s (t m) where
get = lift get
put
GHCi allows us to mix fixed compiled and dynamic interpreted code to
be run from what I presume is dynamic interpreted code - the command
prompt. Would it be possible to run dynamic interpreted code from
a compiled program? I'm hoping the answer is Yes, because this is what
GHCi does, the only
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Yep, but in hugs +o the latter overrides the first one. Which is quite
convenient.
I doubt that it works predictably in all cases (when state types are not
known statically). I can try to construct an example if you wish.
translift :: (MonadTrans t,
GHCi allows us to mix fixed compiled and dynamic interpreted code to
be run from what I presume is dynamic interpreted code - the command
prompt. Would it be possible to run dynamic interpreted code from
a compiled program? I'm hoping the answer is Yes, because
this is what
GHCi does,
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
parse a sentence involving the ambiguous productions. So,
you can
Carl R. Witty wrote:
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
parse a sentence involving the
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I
have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing
allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work
in Hugs (where you don't have a
do u isolate just the datatype, or a few related with, in a very small file (header
like, i would say)
or some basic accessor function with it ?
isnt it leading to massiv quantities of small files ?
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Donnerstag, 10.
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[received message twice]
Am I just the only one or does everybody receive
messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] twice? I find
it a bit (I know I am exaggerating) annoying.
Is there a way to avoid this?
Regards,
Marc
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
parse a sentence involving the ambiguous productions. So,
you can
Carl R. Witty wrote:
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
parse a sentence involving the
Taesch, Luc wrote:
do u isolate just the datatype, or a few related with, in a very small file (header
like, i would say)
or some basic accessor function with it ?
isnt it leading to massiv quantities of small files ?
Asuming you have some typed AST with many mutually recursive
14 matches
Mail list logo
