On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:48:34 -0700, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de
wrote:
On Thursday 08 July 2010 18:24:05, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de
wrote:
Well, I made the suggestion of emitting a warning on instance
Kevin Quick qu...@sparq.org writes:
I would think that only mutually recursive default methods would
require respecification and that there could be any number of default
methods that were reasonable as is. Since it's probably quite
difficult for the Haskell compiler to analytically detect
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:26:13 -0700, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Quick qu...@sparq.org writes:
I would think that only mutually recursive default methods would
require respecification and that there could be any number of default
methods that were reasonable
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Kevin Quick qu...@sparq.org wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:26:13 -0700, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Quick qu...@sparq.org writes:
I would think that only mutually recursive default methods would
require respecification and
On Jul 9, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Quick wrote:
That's probably an interesting assertion that one of the category
theorists around here could prove or disprove. ;-)
It's not too hard. I don't like thinking about it in terms of
category theory, though. It's easier to think about it in
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:57:34 -0700, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope the above demonstrate that there are at least some fairly reasonable
(and, given your request, appropriately category theoretic!) examples where
one would want the ability to specify that there is more than one
Hi,
I just noticed that in ghci:
data Test = Test String
instance Show Test
show $ Test Hello
Will result in infinite recursion.
Is this a known bug?
Thanks,
titto
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Thursday 08 July 2010 15:20:13, Pasqualino Titto Assini wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed that in ghci:
data Test = Test String
instance Show Test
show $ Test Hello
Will result in infinite recursion.
Is this a known bug?
It's not a bug.
There are default methods in Show for show in
Hi titto,
You should try to give a complete list of steps which can be run to
reproduce your problem. This also includes ghci --version output and
maybe some info about the OS you're working on.
So how you you load the code into ghci? Using ghci File.hs or :l ?
In any case you want to declare
Thanks for the explanation.
What I meant is not that is a bug that it recurses but rather the fact
that the compiler will accept this incomplete definition without
complaining.
This problem has bitten me twice while trying to use automatic
derivation of a data type in another file.
In my
Pasqualino \Titto\ Assini tittoass...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
I just noticed that in ghci:
data Test = Test String
instance Show Test
show $ Test Hello
Well, for starters you specify such a thing in ghci, so presumably you
loaded a file with these definitions.
Will result in infinite
Pasqualino \Titto\ Assini tittoass...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for the explanation.
What I meant is not that is a bug that it recurses but rather the fact
that the compiler will accept this incomplete definition without
complaining.
This problem has bitten me twice while trying to use
Hehe, seems like a -W-mutual-recursive-default-methods option is in order.
On 8 July 2010 15:47, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Pasqualino \Titto\ Assini tittoass...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for the explanation.
What I meant is not that is a bug that it recurses but
Well the problem is that no warnings are generated.
If you have a class with some methods that do not have a default
implementation and you do not provide them when defining your
instance, GHC will at least politely complain.
Ideally, GHC would detect that a Show instance requires one of its two
Pasqualino \Titto\ Assini tittoass...@gmail.com writes:
Well the problem is that no warnings are generated.
If you have a class with some methods that do not have a default
implementation and you do not provide them when defining your
instance, GHC will at least politely complain.
Ideally,
On 8 July 2010 15:11, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
So you're volunteering to write such functionality? :p
No !
I will patiently wait for the Simons' Dream Team to fix that and in
the meantime I will live with the realisation that, having been kicked
out of Eden, there
On Thursday 08 July 2010 16:11:58, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Pasqualino \Titto\ Assini tittoass...@gmail.com writes:
Well the problem is that no warnings are generated.
If you have a class with some methods that do not have a default
implementation and you do not provide them when
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de wrote:
Well, I made the suggestion of emitting a warning on instance declarations
without method definitions. That would be comparatively easy to implement
(even with an additional check to only emit the warning if the
On Thursday 08 July 2010 18:24:05, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.de
wrote:
Well, I made the suggestion of emitting a warning on instance
declarations without method definitions. That would be comparatively
easy to implement (even
Hello all,
Maybe this is a wrong place to report, but I have repeatedly performed
funny calculation in GHCi with strange time report. The version of
GHCi is:
___ ___ _
/ _ \ /\ /\/ __(_)
/ /_\// /_/ / / | | GHC Interactive, version 6.6, for Haskell 98.
/ /_\\/ __ / /___|
20 matches
Mail list logo
