Bugs item #635718, was opened at 2002-11-08 23:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ajk
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=635718group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
Bugs item #635718, was opened at 2002-11-08 21:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=635718group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
I can't reproduce this failure:
~/scratch cat ModName/Main.hs
module ModName.Main where
main=print hello
~/scratch ghc -o out --make ModName/Main.hs -main-is ModName.Main.main
Chasing modules from: ModName/Main.hs
Skipping ModName.Main ( ModName/Main.hs, ModName/Main.o )
Linking
Bugs item #635718, was opened at 2002-11-08 23:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ajk
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=635718group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
Bugs item #1256533, was opened at 2005-08-11 09:06
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1256533group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
Ah I see now. The underlying problem is that GHC's no need to
recompile check takes account of changes in the source file, but does
not take into account changes in the flags.
So it skipped recompiling Test2, but it should have recompiled it to
make the -main-is take effect. Failing to do so
On 11 August 2005 04:05, Andre Pang wrote:
On 23/07/2005, at 12:12 AM, Gregory Wright wrote:
I'm trying to get caballized package deployment working on Mac OS X.
However, trying to build a package using runhaskell results in:
crossroads-able runhaskell Setup.hs configure
Warning: No
On 11 August 2005 01:18, John Meacham wrote:
Why do we set file descriptors to nonblocking mode anyway if they are
waited on by a select. there shouldn't be a need to use both
It avoids an extra system call per read(), i.e. a single read() instead
of select() + read(). And there's a slight
Bugs item #1251699, was opened at 2005-08-04 09:03
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1251699group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Bugs item #1251699, was opened at 2005-08-04 11:03
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ggd
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1251699group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
Bugs item #1251699, was opened at 2005-08-04 09:03
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1251699group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11 August 2005 01:18, John Meacham wrote:
Why do we set file descriptors to nonblocking mode anyway if they are
waited on by a select. there shouldn't be a need to use both
It avoids an extra system call per read(), i.e. a single read() instead
of
Bugs item #1256785, was opened at 2005-08-11 15:05
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1256785group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
Bugs item #1245810, was opened at 2005-07-27 08:32
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonpj
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1245810group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Bugs item #1213876, was opened at 2005-06-02 23:55
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonpj
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1213876group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Bugs item #1186911, was opened at 2005-04-20 20:25
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonpj
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1186911group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Bugs item #1206426, was opened at 2005-05-21 23:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sigbjorn
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=1206426group_id=8032
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
You raise a vexed question, which has been discussed a lot. Should this
typecheck?
class C a b | a - b
instance C Int Bool
f :: forall a. C Int a = a - a
f x = x
GHC rejects the type signature for f, because we can see that 'a' *must
be* Bool, so it's a bit
I could build a binary distribution (without OpenGL/GLUT/OpenAL) from
yesterday's cvs under solaris as well.
However, I'ld like to see the ghci linking/Mangler problem being fixed.
(I've no time to look into it, soon.)
Christian
Geisler, Tim (EXT) wrote:
ghc-6.4.1.20050806 (and before
mt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html
[Most hackers I know have been disappointed by the ML family. Languages with
static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought
of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But
Hello mt,
Thursday, August 11, 2005, 12:40:39 AM, you wrote:
m [thnk 4 the previous answers !]
m Good [morning, afternoon, night],
m I try to better understand some things... maybe you can help me.
m Id' like to know what are the pros and cons of (not) having static typing.
m Same question for
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can quote someone from this list: if haskell compiler allow my
program to be compiled then I know that there is no more errors in
it.
I wish quotes like this weren't bandied about without mentioning that
they almost entirely, but not quite, true.
i can quote someone from this list: if haskell compiler allow my
program to be compiled then i know that there is no more errors in
it. static typing is just an instrument which catches much more
programmers' errors. static typing don't allow more programs tobe
compiled - conversely, it
Hello.
My institution is currently revising
the curriculum for Bachelors and Masters in Computer Science.
One point of interest is the role of programming,
and especially that of the functional paradigm.
I'd like to compare our plans to other existing curricula.
The main critique raised
From: mt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yes, that's the kind of answer i expected... that's the kind
of thing you
always see when reading something about haskell. but i guess there's
arguments against... i'd like to make my opinion without just reading
a post saying it catches many errors.
At 10:40 PM +0200 2005/8/10, mt wrote:
... Languages with
static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought
of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how
programs get written.
Well, that is actually how lots of programs do get written.
For
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:40:25PM -0400, Hamilton Richards wrote:
At 10:40 PM +0200 2005/8/10, mt wrote:
... Languages with
static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought
of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how
programs get
mt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most hackers I know have been disappointed by the ML family. Languages with
static typing would be more suitable if programs were something you thought
of in advance, and then merely translated into code. But that's not how
programs get written.
Type inferencing
G'day all.
Quoting John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I find pretty much completly the opposite is true. for random hacking
and evolving code, static typing is essential.
I agree with that.
While you can't be certain that once your code typechecks, it's bug-free
(though that does often happen),
I was curious if there has been any research on concurrency analysis
which would determine which thunks might be accessed concurrently by
different threads. I imagine that the vast majority are only accessed in
a single threaded manner so can use a more efficient representation when
doing SMP
I would like to state that a class Sup is exhaustively broken down in two
subclasses Sub1 and Sub2 (meaning, for every instance of Sub1 and every
instance of Sub2, the methods in Sup apply).
I try to code this as:
instance Sub1 x = Sup x
instance Sub2 x = Sup x
And get the (expected) error
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
snip
btw, afaik Spirit is modeled after ParseC (parsing combinators)
haskell library and Phoenix was needed for this library because parser
combinators require lazy functional language to work :)
Hi Bulat - thanks for this!
I didn't know that about Phoenix.
Greg Buchholz wrote:
Andy Elvey wrote:
a) Using Haskell to read a delimited file (with column-headings) into a
columnar or tabular data-structure -
Parsec (http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/parsec.html) is a great parsing
library in Haskell.
Greg Buchholz
Hi Greg - thanks very
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
afaik Spirit is modeled after ParseC (parsing combinators)
haskell library and Phoenix was needed for this library
because parser combinators require lazy functional language to
work :)
Just a minor nit: the Phoenix library has nothing to do with
parsing. It's
It's intentional.
Consider this data type declaration
data B b = MkT (A a b)
Should that be accepted? The only thing it could possibly mean would be
data B b = MkT (forall a. A a b)
and I suppose that might possibly be useful. But in this case you're
also saying that a
Einar
Good question. This is a more subtle form of the same problem as I
described in my last message. In fact, it's what Martin Sulzmann calls
the critical example. Here is a boiled down version, much simpler to
understand.
module Proxy where
class Dep a b | a - b
The previous comments make sense to me. The lots-of-unit-tests aspect of
static typing I find really useful, far exceeding any BDSM cost. If I'm
engaging in exploratory programming, the type inference combined with the
ability to write 'error armadillo' in stubs for values I can't be
bothered to
Hello Peter,
Thursday, August 11, 2005, 1:18:54 PM, you wrote:
PS afaik Spirit is modeled after ParseC (parsing combinators)
PS haskell library and Phoenix was needed for this library
PS because parser combinators require lazy functional language to
PS work :)
PS Just a minor nit: the
Hello,
On 8/11/05, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Here is a boiled down version, much simpler to
understand.
module Proxy where
class Dep a b | a - b
instance Dep Char Bool
foo :: forall a. a - (forall b. Dep a b = a - b) - Int
39 matches
Mail list logo
