[ forwarding to ghc-bugs, just in case anyone there can help me out ]
Hi,
I've been trying in vain over the last day or so to reproduce the
following GHC bugs, both allegedly demonstrated by Pugs:
[ 1226252 ] internal error: EVACUATED object entered!
On 14 July 2005 22:02, Dinko Tenev wrote:
It turns out, ar couldn't quite handle building the symbol table for
the archive. I tried ar qS, then ranlib the archive, but ranlib turns
out to be exactly the same kind of brittle crap...
I am currently looking for more robust binutils - I'll
On 15 July 2005 14:32, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
PS to GHC HQ: Can we please have the latest Cabal in GHC 6.4.1?
Sorry, that would violate the no API changes in patchelevels
invariant. But it'll be easy to upgrade Cabal separately.
Cheers,
Simon
Brian,
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 19:58 -0500, Brian Smith wrote:
On 7/14/05, Frederik Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:15:32AM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
The offside rule is patronizing. :)
It tries to force you to lay out your program in a certain way.
If
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:10:16AM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
I agree with Frederik since I've been bitten by that rule before.
Defining a single function like so:
let a very long definition of a = and the body has to be here
is a very long application to
On 2005-07-15 at 10:49+0200 Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
But you can format it this way:
let a very long definition of a =
and the body has to be here is a very long application to and
but using long arguments like definition is not that bad
in
or
let a very long definition
on Jun 22 Andrew Bromage wrote about the usefulness of
soft-cuts and don't care non-determinism in non-deterministic
computations in Haskell.
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2005-June/016037.html
Thank you very much for your explanation, it was helpful indeed. You
noted,
Some of the
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I would like to bristle mildly against the style of using Vector.T to
represent the vector type. The reasons are 1) it is cryptic to those
not used to the convention;
What does this tell about the quality of the concept?
2) enshrining
On 15 July 2005 09:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
2) enshrining one-type-per-module in the naming convention is not IMO
justified, and may prove limiting;
Other languages like Modula-3 and Oberon do it with great success. The
limit in Haskell is
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 15 July 2005 09:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
The limit in Haskell is that most compilers don't conform to the
Haskell 98 report which allows mutually recursive modules. But I think
the compilers should allow them instead of forcing users to
On 15 July 2005 11:24, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 15 July 2005 09:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
The limit in Haskell is that most compilers don't conform to the
Haskell 98 report which allows mutually recursive modules. But I
think the compilers
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope you weren't including GHC in most compilers :-) GHC's
implementation of mutually recursive modules is conformant with Haskell
98 (see Section 5.7).
It depends on how you interpret this phrase:
may require that imported modules contain
Hello
I am having problems with GHC infering functional dependencies related
types in a too conservative fashion.
class Imp2 a b | a - b
instance Imp2 (Foo a) (Wrap a)
newtype Wrap a = Wrap { unWrap :: a }
data Foo a = Foo
data Proxy (cxt :: * - *)
foo :: Imp2 (ctx c) d = Proxy ctx -
You guys should really document that nhc98 support mut. rec. modules
too.
Agreed.
I believe the Haskell'98 libraries are mutually recursive by definition
(Prelude imports Ratio, and Ratio imports the Prelude), so probably all
compilers have had to deal with this from the start. nhc98's
Here's a question for the Haskell community that I've been wrestling
with lately. When we say lists are monads what does that mean? I can
see one of two things. First the slightly superficial...
A.) Lists can be made members of the Monads class, and you can define
a couple of
Interpretation A is correct. The type (constructor) of Lists gives a
monad together with return x = [x] and x = f = concatMap f x.
Interpretation B doesn't really work, because the monad interface does
not give one the ability to write head or tail. You basically have
return (which gets you from
On 7/15/05, Andy Gimblett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
[snipped] Unfortunately, here's
what happens:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spa_haskell] ghc -o Main Main.hs
Main.o(.text+0x145): In function `__stginit_Main_':
: undefined reference to `__stginit_DataziGraphziInductive_'
collect2: ld
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:42:11AM -0700, Josh Hoyt wrote:
I'm pretty new myself, but I ran into a similar problem using a
different library. The problem is that some parts of the library are
hidden by default, and you have to tell ghc to include them. To
solve your immediate problem, add
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:13:53PM +0100, Andy Gimblett wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:42:11AM -0700, Josh Hoyt wrote:
I'm pretty new myself, but I ran into a similar problem using a
different library. The problem is that some parts of the library are
hidden by default, and you have to
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:48:04AM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
2) enshrining one-type-per-module in the naming convention is not IMO
justified, and may prove limiting;
Other languages like Modula-3 and Oberon do it with great success. The
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Hand-writing .hi files is how GHC used to work (up to version 0.29,
IIRC). It's not entirely satisfactory because you can get into
situations where you have to 'make' several times to get to a fixed
point, and you can construct
I have mixed feelings about Module.T, but consider it useful. basically,
I use it only when the module naturally only exports a single type which
is the purpose of the module (modules which incidentally only export a
single type but have a different focus shouldn't use the type synonym)
and the
I interpreted the style as removing anything that is redundant in the
context of the module. In math, when you're talking about vector
spaces, you say add and multiply, but you don't say thing or
one--you still say vector.
you mean if I have a Vector thing and a Matrix thing, I cannot
just
A.M.Gimblett:
Hi all,
I'm something of a Haskell newbie, and this is my first post to this
list.
I'm trying to do some very basic things with graphs, but can't get
started with Data.Graph. In particular, linking fails - I'm wondering
if something's wrong with my install. (For the
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:51:59PM +0200, Magnus Carlsson wrote:
A while ago, I attempted to marry value recursion a la Levent Erkök with
the continuation-monad transformer. It seems possible if the underlying
monad has value recursion and references. Interestingly, all mfix
properties
25 matches
Mail list logo
