Actually, getting that arity probably isn't important anyway Try O0.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:26 AM David Feuer wrote:
> What if you go with the big hammer for that module: -O0? My main concern
> about that is that you won't get arity analysis. There may be some more -f
> flags I'
What if you go with the big hammer for that module: -O0? My main concern
about that is that you won't get arity analysis. There may be some more -f
flags I've missed...
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:17 AM Michael Sperber
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 20 2023, David Feuer wrote:
>
> > I don'
I don't know what all that means exactly (especially since GHC's demand
signatures have changed recently in a way I don't understand at all). But
for hiding divergence, one option is to use a module with demand analysis
disabled. Try {-# options_ghc -fno-strictness #-}. You'll likely need to
put
Excellent!
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 10:29 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> David Feuer writes:
>
> > Does this release include the fix for #22549 (infinite loops for some
> > undecidable instances)?
> >
> Yes, it includes a backport of !
Does this release include the fix for #22549 (infinite loops for some
undecidable instances)?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:36 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> The GHC developers are happy to announce the availability of GHC 9.4.4.
> Binary
> distributions, source distributions, and documentation are available
; of constructors, which are a dense set?
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:59 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> You can ask, but someone else will have to answer. Sorry.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:52 PM Clinton Mead
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks David
s an if/else chain in order of the constructor definition
> regardless of the order of the case statement so the higher up the list the
> better?
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM David Feuer wrote:
>>
>> I can answer one of your questions for sure: the order of your cas
I can answer one of your questions for sure: the order of your case
branches doesn't matter at all. However, the order of the data constructors
in the type declaration does matter. Put your most likely one first.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, 9:09 PM Clinton Mead wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I'm developing an
There's no such directory in the Hackage or GitHub source. I guess it must
have crept in on the GHC side?
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 4:13 AM Jens Petersen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 15:40, David Feuer wrote:
>
>> Could you explain what you mean about the containers source not bei
Could you explain what you mean about the containers source not being
"clean"?
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 2:31 AM Jens Petersen wrote:
> First of all a big thank you and congratulations on the highly anticipated
> 9.0.2 release.
>
> I have been putting off this mail for a while:
> I actually built
ard Kmett wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:39 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> To be clear, the proposal to allow different constraints was accepted,
>> but integrating it into the current, incredibly complex, code was well
>> beyond the limited abilities of the one pe
To be clear, the proposal to allow different constraints was accepted, but
integrating it into the current, incredibly complex, code was well beyond
the limited abilities of the one person who made an attempt. Totally
severing pattern synonyms from constructor synonyms (giving them separate
No, fromList is too much. Consider
data Foo a = Foo (IORef String) [a]
deriving Foldable
What IORef should fromList use?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 2:44 AM Anthony Clayden
wrote:
> (Moving this discussion to glasgow-users. It's just not appropriate on the
> cafe.)
>
>
> > I am no longer a
p
> -1 is making up 1-2 toy examples and explaining what and why you want it on
> a ghc ticket!
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:25 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> I would like that, along with the ability to bundle patterns with classes.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 1:13 P
ng what and why you want it on
> a ghc ticket!
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:25 PM David Feuer wrote:
>
>> I would like that, along with the ability to bundle patterns with classes.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 1:13 PM Keith wrote:
>>
>>> Is there currently a w
I mean GHC.Tuple, of course.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 8:14 PM David Feuer wrote:
> One more question: is Solo exported from Data.Tuple yet, or do we still
> have to depend on ghc-prim and import it from GHC.Magic? It would be really
> nice to have that fixed by release, and it'
One more question: is Solo exported from Data.Tuple yet, or do we still
have to depend on ghc-prim and import it from GHC.Magic? It would be really
nice to have that fixed by release, and it's so tiny.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 6:01 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The GHC developers are very
Have array and reference types and primos been updated to be
BoxedRep-polymorphic, or is it still just expensive scaffolding?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 6:01 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The GHC developers are very happy to announce the availability of the
> release cadidate of the 9.2.1
**
> instance till much later. So I still don’t get it. An example would
> clear it up.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* David Feuer
> *Sent:* 10 August 2021 12:01
> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones
> *Cc:* Anthony Clayden ; GHC users <
> glasgow-haskel
; better, that would be great.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users *On
> Behalf Of *David Feuer
> *Sent:* 08 August 2021 09:37
> *To:* Anthony Clayden
> *Cc:* GHC users
> *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more
>
To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary.
They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes:
1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type.
2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`.
3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic
`Char` is defined in user code. What you really can't define are Char# and
TYPE, and you can't modify `RuntimeRep`. Speaking of `Char#`, I see that in
9.0, at least, it has kind TYPE 'WordRep. Why is that not Word32Rep?
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021, 10:50 PM Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 1,
agma-history
>
> PatternSynonyms was implemented in GHC 7.8, and TypeFamilyDependencies
> was implemented in GHC 8.0.
>
> Regards,
> Takenobu
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 2:08 AM David Feuer wrote:
> >
> > I'm working on some code I want to be compatible with multiple GHC
> v
I'm working on some code I want to be compatible with multiple GHC versions
and I'm trying to figure out which language extensions I can reasonably
use. I definitely need usable fancy pattern synonyms (not the bare-bones
ones in 7.8). So that should set a lower bound, but I don't remember where.
Will this be updated to the latest containers before release? It's two
versions behind at the moment.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 3:14 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The GHC team is very pleased to announce the availability of the first
> alpha release in the GHC 9.0 series. Source and binary
Will this be updated to the latest containers before release? It's two
versions behind at the moment.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 3:14 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The GHC team is very pleased to announce the availability of the first
> alpha release in the GHC 9.0 series. Source and binary
f pointers, but
that would require a new heap object type, which would be a lot to ask for.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 8:56 PM Bertram Felgenhauer via Glasgow-haskell-users
wrote:
> David Feuer wrote:
> > I'm looking to play around with an array-based structure with
> > sub-linear worst-cas
I'm looking to play around with an array-based structure with sub-linear
worst-case bounds. Array is pretty awkward in that context because creating
a new one takes O(n) time to initialize it. Is that all true of
newByteArray, or can I get one with arbitrary garbage in it for cheap?
So I guess this is to avoid having to check the closure type on each
mutation to see if the array needs to be added to the mutable list?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:12 PM Bertram Felgenhauer via Glasgow-haskell-users
wrote:
> David Feuer wrote:
> > I know that a frozen array doe
I know that a frozen array doesn't have to be searched for elements in
a younger generation, but how does it differ from an unfrozen array
that hasn't been mutated since the last collection?
David
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Case matching is already optimized in GHC. There might be ways to improve
it, but it already uses binary search and/or jump tables to improve
performance when there are many branches.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:59 AM olexandr543--- via Haskell <
haskell@haskell.org> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> My library
You also need to avoid inspecting the StablePtr itself, which is just a
number, to maintain purity. The whole thing is a bit weird. Why do you want
this anyway?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 7:39 AM David Feuer wrote:
> So something like
>
> newtype StablePtr a = StablePtr (StablePtrST
So something like
newtype StablePtr a = StablePtr (StablePtrST RealWorld a)?
I suppose that could work with some discipline. You have to assume that
foreign code doesn't pick its address out of a hat and so something silly,
but I guess you pretty much have to assume that anyway.
On Wed, Aug 21,
I've been playing around with 8.6.3, and I've really been appreciating the
improvements in typed hole messages. Both the information about constraints
and the suggestions for filling the holes have proven valuable in heavily
typish programming. Thanks! One thing that's still not where I'd like it
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 PM Carter Schonwald
wrote:
>
> Hey David, i'm looking at the git history andit doesn't seem to have any
> commits between 8.4.3 and 8.4.4 related to the dataToTag issue
>
> does any haskell code in the while trigger the bug on 8.4 series?
I don't think anyone knows.
alAt @ v of
> > LT -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u < v) CompareLT
> > EQ -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u ~ v) CompareEQ
> > GT -> unsafeSatisfy @ (u > v) CompareGT
>
> If anyone has other techniques to suggest, I'd love to hear.
>
> --
I think the usual approach for defining these sorts of primitive operations
is to use unsafeCoerce.
On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:39 PM Conal Elliott wrote:
> When programming with GHC's type-level natural numbers and `KnownNat`
> constraints, how can one construct *evidence* of the
omes another backwater where ideas go to get ignored?
>
>
> AntC
>
>
>>
>> | -Original Message-
>> | From: Glasgow-haskell-users > | boun...@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Anthony Clayden
>> | Sent: 02 May 2018 02:34
>> | To: glasgow-haske
We also have an inconsistency between the textual descriptions of
accumArray and accum and their reference implementations. I recently
changed GHC's implementations to better match the text (for efficiency
reasons), but the reference implementations should be adjusted too.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at
I don't see how 62 seconds rather than 60 is anything close to going off
the rails. Did I read something wrong? This sounds more like a minor wibble.
On Feb 28, 2018 10:32 AM, "Ben Gamari" wrote:
> Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev writes:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> >
Suppose I have a function of type
unionWith# :: (Hashable k, Eq k) => (a -> a -> (# a #)) -> HashMap k a
-> HashMap k a -> HashMap k a
I can use this to implement strict and lazy unions with practically no
code duplication either in source or in generated code:
S.unionWith, L.unionWith ::
I still haven't really digested what you've written, but I wish to pick a
nit (below)
On Nov 20, 2017 3:44 AM, "Anthony Clayden" <anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:
> On Thu Nov 16 01:31:55 UTC 2017, David Feuer wrote:
...
> For (&&), the obvious things you'd wa
I think this discussion would be more appropriate to the libraries list.
On Nov 9, 2017 11:05 AM, "Geraint Jones"
wrote:
> There are two things you might think of when you think of scanr;
> or rather, there are two things I think of: a specification
>
>
I believe the answer is currently no. As I understand it, the entire
instance resolution mechanism drops away after type checking and is
therefore not available to the simplifier. So if you need to add a
constraint on the RHS of a rule, I think you're mostly out of luck. The
only thing I can think
This is off-topic for this list. This list is for announcements. This
belongs on haskell-c...@haskell.org
On Sep 1, 2017 11:05 AM, "Baa" wrote:
> David, hello!
>
> 1. Is it the same/different as:
>
> data family Day a
> data Sunny
> data Rainy
> data instance Day
Have you gotten in touch with Joachim? I think he's touched that space in
the not too murky past.
On Aug 31, 2017 11:18 AM, "Yitzchak Gale" wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> I need a simple heap visualization for debugging purposes...
> >> Vacuum... has some long-outstanding PRs against
In the old days, DeriveDataTypeable enabled deriving both Data and
Typeable. As of a fairly recent GHC version (7.10? 8.0?), Typeable
instances are indeed derived automatically for all types that can get
such instances, so DeriveDataTypeable is only used for deriving Data
instances. I can't say
onsistent. Is it more
> consistent to treat tuples as transparent and consider every component with
> type `a`, or is it more consistent to treat tuples as opaque and reuse the
> existing Foldable instance for tuples even if it might cause a compile time
> error?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar
This seems much too weird:
*> :set -XDeriveFoldable
*> data Foo a = Foo ((a,a),a) deriving Foldable
*> length ((1,1),1)
1
*> length $ Foo ((1,1),1)
3
I've opened Trac #13465 [*] for this. As I write there, I think the
right thing is to refuse to derive Foldable for a type whose Foldable
instance
No. The part in quotes is the *name* of the rewrite rule, which is reported
to the user when GHC is called with things like -ddump-rule-rewrites and is
otherwise completely ignored.
On Jan 16, 2017 4:09 AM, "Erik de Castro Lopo" wrote:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> very
ry and evaluate a type with no
> inhabitants.
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, if you write
>>
>> data V a deriving Functor
>>
>> GHC generates
>>
>> fmap _ _ = error "
he much more precise "Too many
snozzcumbers!" I've opened Trac #13117 to fix this, but I figured I should
double check that no one is opposed.
David Feuer
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/
the underlying implementation. If the class author doesn't make such a
claim, I want users to have to be explicit about the methods derived by GND.
On Jan 12, 2017 8:01 AM, "Reid Barton" <rwbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:11 PM, David Feuer <david.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree with David that using explicit `coerce`s can be quite verbose and
> may need ScopedTypeVariables and InstanceSigs. But visible type application
> should always work, because class methods always have a fixed
ood_enough_default join = (>>= id)
This would allow users to just write
newtype Foo a = Foo ... deriving Monad
which would then be equivalent (using the notation you came up with) to
instance Monad Foo where
deriving newtype (>>=)
David Feuer
__
e type argument order), things get
even more verbose.
On Jan 8, 2017 11:32 PM, "Joachim Breitner" <m...@joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just responding to this one aspect:
>
> Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 21:16 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:
> > but using
There are some situations where we may want to use GND to derive some
class methods when it's not applicable to others. For example, some
people would very much like to add a join method to Monad, but doing
so would prevent GND from working for Monad. Similarly, the distribute
method of
d, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Index Int <vlad.z.4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a related GHC Proposal:
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:04 PM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> &
em would be essentially unusable without it.
4. What would the language extension do, exactly?
a. Automatically satisfy Seq for data types and families.
b. Propagate Seq constraints using the usual rules and the special
Coercible rule.
c. Modify the translation of strict fields to add Seq const
The containers package uses the awkward double name approach. See, for
example, the way that Data.Map and Data.Sequence fuse (indexed) maps and
indexed) traversals. I know that Edward Kmett is very much opposed to
class-based rules as found in Control.Arrow because non-law-abiding
instances will
Congrats! I look forward to seeing how this develops.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM, lennart spitzner
wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am happy to announce a first alpha release of brittany (0.7.0.0),
> a haskell source code formatting tool based on ghc-exactprint [2]
>
There's a lot to see in this one. There are plenty of brand-new
functions in Data.Map, Data.Set, and Data.Sequence, including a
highly-optimized lens-inspired map alteration function and a brand-new
API for merging maps efficiently. Several key map, set, and sequence
functions have sped up
2016 at 6:13 PM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using a zipper will not get you very far here. The best way would
> likely be to replace the list with a balanced search tree.
>
That depends on the pattern of access and usage. For some a zippered list
will outperform
Using a zipper will not get you very far here. The best way would
likely be to replace the list with a balanced search tree. Sticking
with the list for now, your choice to replace the entire list with [5]
if the sought element is not found seems a bit peculiar, and also
leads to an inherent
What makes
f do{x} do{y}
any harder to read than similar record syntax?
f Foo{foo=3} Foo{foo=4}
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Carter Schonwald
wrote:
> agreed -1,
> ambiguity is bad for humans, not just parsers.
>
> perhaps most damningly,
>>
>>
>> f do{ x } do {
I strongly agree with per-declaration warning suppression. But I'd like to
leave both warnings on by default in -Wall.
1. Sometimes an upstream library will drop a constraint. The warning lets
me know I can drop it too.
2. Sometimes an implementation evolves from a draft that requires a
The state token is zero-width and should therefore be erased altogether in
code generation.
On May 14, 2016 4:21 PM, "Tyson Whitehead" wrote:
> On 14/05/16 02:31 PM, Harendra Kumar wrote:
>
>> The difference seems to be entirely due to memory pressure. At list size
>> 1000
Well, a few weeks ago Bertram Felgenhauer came up with a version of IO that
acts more like lazy ST. That could be just the thing. He placed it in the
public domain/CC0 and told me I could put it up on Hackage if I want. I'll
try to do that this week, but no promises. I could forward his email if
containers compile times have generally gotten slower from version to version.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Ben Gamari wrote:
>
>> So, if you would like to see your program's compilation time improve
>> in GHC 8.2, put some time into reducing
Does this really strain storage infrastructure? There are only a few
blobs per release. If that's really a problem, sufficiently ancient
ones can presumably be pruned down to a single format without too many
complaints (e.g., if someone wants GHC 7.6, they may not be able to
have their choice of
The Eq constraint is needed to support pattern matching, the raison d’être
of pattern synonyms. I'm pretty sure the reason you need
ScopedTypeVariables for your second example is that GHC only allows pattern
signatures with that extension enabled. Once upon a time there was a
separate
I think this is a mistake, yes. They should not raise such exceptions, but
rather just wrap around—minBound `quot` (-1) should be -minBound=minBound.
That would justify the behavior of rem and mod, and makes much more sense
than the current behavior for Int as a ring.
On Jun 1, 2015 12:41 PM,
Last I heard, it was extremely experimental and somewhat broken. Carter was
working on some of the worst problems, but he's been kind of busy.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Dominic Steinitz domi...@steinitz.org
wrote:
What’s the story with this? I tried to follow the instructions here:
I think it would be very good to reach out especially to women who are or
have been active in Haskell. We seem to have very few if any women in
leadership positions—as far as I can tell, there are none on the haskell.org
committee or the core libraries committee—and this does not send a very
On a machine with an SSD instead of a hard disk, swapping greatly reduces
the lifespan of the storage device.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Bertram Felgenhauer
bertram.felgenha...@googlemail.com wrote:
George Colpitts wrote:
I'm curious why the amount of RAM is relevant as all of our OS
I know this will be controversial, because it can break (weird) code and
because it's not Haskell 2010, but hey, you can't make brain salad without
breaking a few heads. ScopedTypeVariables is just awesome for two
fundamental reasons:
1. It lets you write type signatures for more things.
2. It
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I think ($) is the way it is specifically because 'runST $ ...' is
considered useful and common enough to warrant an ad-hoc solution. There
have been other ad-hoc solutions in the past, but redesigning inference to
not
The problem is that GHC's type system is (almost entirely)
predicative. I couldn't tell you just what that means, but to a first
approximation, it means that type variables cannot be instantiated to
polymorphic types. You write
trip = Wrap . extract
which means
(.) Wrap extract
On Jan 21, 2015 9:53 AM, Stephen Paul Weber singpol...@singpolyma.net
wrote:
Having them on by default mean that valid Haskell2010 programs might get
rejected by GHC by default, which is a pretty bad state of affairs.
It would be if it were true. But it's not. All that changes is that you get
If such verbiage is added, it should probably read more like If you did
not intend to insert a typed hole, _foo may have been misspelled.
On Jan 21, 2015 9:11 AM, Volker Wysk vertei...@volker-wysk.de wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015, 11:03:38 schrieben Sie:
If there's any comments on how
Just use exit_ or something instead. Typed holes are a *really useful*
mechanism.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:51 PM, migmit mig...@gmail.com wrote:
DON'T DO THAT!
Seriously, turn off compile-time type checking completely just to start an
identifier with an underscore???
Отправлено с iPad
20
Wrongly, as it turned out. Sorry! The problem remains.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Feuer david.fe...@gmail.com wrote:
And I've closed it as worksforme. I couldn't reproduce the problem
with 7.11.20150103.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:42 AM, adam vogt vogt.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I've
And I've closed it as worksforme. I couldn't reproduce the problem
with 7.11.20150103.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:42 AM, adam vogt vogt.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I've added it as https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10009
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Richard Eisenberg e...@cis.upenn.edu
I've just taken over maintainership of the boxes package, and will be
making a maintenance release shortly (as soon as I figure out how and get
added to the maintainers group). The package, however, currently suffers
from a paucity of bug reports (no problem) and feature requests (not so
great).
Does anyone know when the wiki will be back up to speed?
Until then, could one of the infrastructure people please have
status.haskell.org indicate a partial service disruption?
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
I think you're right, and that's a strong reason to come up with an update
to the Haskell Report. Include in it, at least:
-- Big-ticket items
0. Monoid
1. Foldable, Traversable
2. Applicative
3. Applicative = Monad
-- side notes
4. inits = map reverse . scanl (flip (:)) [] -- efficiency—not
That's an interesting question. I'm not even close to an expert, but I
*think* that parametricity prevents those particular rules from breaking
Safe Haskell guarantees. The laws may not *hold* for a broken instance, but
I don't *think* that lets you break type safety or IO encapsulation.
On Nov
+1. Windows XP was Microsoft's most successful OS thus far, but it's pretty
much dead now. One potentially related potential concern: how will this
change affect Wine support?
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Austin Seipp aus...@well-typed.com wrote:
Hi all,
This is a quick discussion about
+1.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Tom Murphy amin...@gmail.com wrote:
(Not to be confused with the hiding import behavior discussion also
going on)
--
Currently, I'm able to write module Foo where to export everything
defined in Foo.
If, though, I add to the module some definitions
You mention only unqualified imports, but if we do this, it should also
apply to qualified ones:
import qualified Data.List as L
import qualified MyModule as L (isInfixOf)
On Oct 18, 2014 2:02 PM, htebalaka goodi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/14 12:32, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 17/10/14
I'm generally in favor of the proposal, but I figured I should mention one
situation when I personally might find this confusing. If the module import
list is very long, and includes an unrestricted import of a well-known
module, it might be easy to assume a certain well-known function comes from
I think this is a great idea. I also think it should apply to the name
shadowing warning—identifiers imported implicitly should never trigger that.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Malcolm Gooding goodi...@gmail.com wrote:
With the prelude changes that people have been discussing recently
I've
It should be good enough (for what you're talking about) to hide them all.
Turn
import A (foo)
import B (bar)
import C hiding (baz)
import D
into
import A (foo)
import B (bar)
import C hiding (foo,bar,baz)
import D hiding (foo,bar)
There's no reason to worry about hiding nonexistent
On Sep 7, 2012 2:00 AM, Edward Z. Yang ezyang
ezy...@mit.edu@ezy...@mit.edu
mit.edu ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Haskell already does this, to some extent, in the design of imprecise
exceptions. But note that bottom *does* have well defined behavior, so
these optimizations are not very desirable.
I have no plans to do such a thing anytime soon, but is there a way to tell
GHC to allow nasal demons to fly if the program forces bottom? This mode of
operation would seem to be a useful optimization when compiling a program
produced by Coq or similar, enabling various transformations that can
://hackage.haskell.org/package/order-statistics
Cheers,
Gershom
On 9/1/12 3:26 PM, David Feuer wrote:
The median function in the hstats package uses a naive O(n log n)
algorithm. Is there another package providing an O(n) option? If not,
what would it take to get the package upgraded
The median function in the hstats package uses a naive O(n log n)
algorithm. Is there another package providing an O(n) option? If not,
what would it take to get the package upgraded?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
If you import qualified then adding functions will never break anything.
If the language is changed (without possibility of breakage, I
believe) so that names declared in a module shadow imported names,
Where are pragmas treated like comments?
On Aug 16, 2012 6:14 AM, Björn Peemöller b...@informatik.uni-kiel.de
wrote:
Dear cafe,
I'm experimenting with extending the parser for a Haskell-like language
by module pragmas. The parser is written using parser combinators.
Currently, I adapted the
On Aug 15, 2012 3:21 AM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
It's even easier than that.
(forall a. P(a)) - Q = exists a. (P(a) - Q)
Where P and Q are metatheoretic/schematic variables. This is just the
usual thing about antecedents being in a negative position, and thus
flipping
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo