Shakthi Kannan writes:
How often does the 00-index.tar.gz file from:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/00-index.tar.gz
get updated?
It is updated each time a new package is uploaded, and contains the
.cabal files for all available packages.
Shakthi Kannan writes:
So, how would I know if there is a new package in it, other than
having to compare it to the previous snapshot? Does the filename
(00-index.tar.gz) change?
The filename doesn't change. You could use the RSS feed or the upload
log
Denis Moskvin writes:
Is there any rationale for coexistence of
newtype Const a b = Const { getConst :: a }
from Control.Applicative and
newtype Constant a b = Constant { getConstant :: a }
from Data.Functor.Constant (transformers package)?
It was an accident. I think it would make
Daniel Díaz Casanueva writes:
How about to a new optional Cabal field like mail-report? (don't bother
about this name, I chose it randomly)
If a build failure happens, or there is some relevant information about your
package, Hackage will send a mail to the direction specified in that
Ryan Ingram writes:
Most of the conversion from arrow syntax into arrows uses 'arr' to move
components around. However, arr is totally opaque to the arrow itself, and
prevents describing some very useful objects as arrows.
For example, I would love to be able to use the arrow syntax to
Bas van Dijk writes:
Is it unsafe to add the following catch-all MonadIO instance to
transformers' Control.Monad.IO.Class module?
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts, UndecidableInstances #-}
instance (MonadTrans t, Monad (t m), MonadIO m) = MonadIO (t m) where
liftIO =
Captain Freako (quoting Control.Arrow.Transformer.Automaton):
Encapsulating an automaton by running it on a stream of inputs, obtaining a
stream of outputs.
Typical usage in arrow notation:
proc p - do
...
ys - (|runAutomaton (\x - ...)|) xs
Here
Max Rabkin writes:
But I also have a concrete suggestion for Hackage: include the package
synopsis on the package's page. The distinction between synopsis and
description can be confusing, and sometimes it seems to violate DRY to
have the same info in both.
You may have missed the header on
Ertugrul Soeylemez writes:
I find myself writing the following very often:
system :: Wire IO () String
system =
proc _ - do
botAddPeriod - succ ^ noise - ()
botAddSpeed - noise1 - ()
botAddStart - noise1 - ()
botMsg - event
Daniel Fischer writes:
A numeric range [a..a+n] might be expected
to have a+n+1 elements, but that doesn't hold either for Float and
Double. I think Enum for floating point values is broken
Yes, it is. Like Eq and Ord.
.. only more so. And the brokenness has infected Rational: try
Ketil Malde writes:
I have a program that makes use of the applicative instance for Either
String. I used to define these instances locally, but at some point,
they became part of Control.Applicative. I have limited the
dependencies to 'base = 4', but apparently, some version 4s of base
Xinyu LIU writes:
I was trying to implement MTF (move-to-front) algorithm, However, neither
Array nor List satisfied all aspects.
Array: Although the random access is O(1), However, move an element to front
takes O(N) in average;
List: Although move to front is O(1), However, random access
Sebastian Fischer [fisc...@nii.ac.jp] wrote:
I'm curious: what laws do you have in mind for '+', '-', and '0' that
do not hold in the multiplicative group of rational numbers with
(+) = (*); (-) = (/); 0 = 1
?
x - x = zero, for one. (with x the other 0)
This seems to be a general problem with the Hackage server as other
packages uploaded after yours have failed to build with similar
errors...
It seems one batch of builds was broken due to some failure in downloading
the package index. I've re-run it.
If this is the case, then multiple sentences in the 2010 report don't
make sense, though the way in which they don't make sense sort of
depends on what simple pattern binding means.
Indeed, the Report has two problems:
Sections 4.4.3.2 and 4.5.5 have different definitions of simple pattern.
Still, the clause
b1 contains a free identifier that has no type signature and
is bound by b2
applies the phrase has no type signature to the identifier, not to
the binding. Such phrasing does not exclude expression
type-signatures.
True. That ambiguity could be avoided
Still, the clause
b1 contains a free identifier that has no type signature and
is bound by b2
applies the phrase has no type signature to the identifier, not to
the binding. Such phrasing does not exclude expression
type-signatures.
True. That ambiguity could
g1 x y z = if xy then show x ++ show z else g2 y x
g2 :: (Show a, Ord a) = a - a - String
g2 | False = \p q - g1 q p ()
| otherwise = \p q - g1 q p 'a'
where x = True
It appears to me that GHC is justified. According to 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, g1
I thought no type signature meant no type signature inside b1.
No, it means no type signature for the variable.
Otherwise, you are saying nothing could depend on a binding with a
type signature. By that logic, there can be no mutual dependence,
and so every declaration with a type signature
19 matches
Mail list logo
