Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it. It is quite a different approach as Simon
had in the presentation I mentioned.
Gives me food for thought, which is good.
--
View this message in context:
brianjohnsonhaskellc...@gmail.com wrote:
The second time I press control-c, it isn't caught -- the program exits
instead. Why?
I don't know why. Same behavior on my platform (Haiku.)
While I imagine someone intimately acquainted with RTS signal handling
might be able to explain it, I think
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
The SIGINT handler looks like more of a quirk of the RTS, than
a feature whose behavior you should depend on in great detail.
I looked into this some more, and found that it is indeed a quirk of the
RTS -- an apparently
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Brian Johnson
brianjohnsonhaskellc...@gmail.com wrote:
From http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Signals:
When the interrupt signal is received, the default behaviour of the
runtime is to attempt to shut down the Haskell program gracefully.
This is great stuff. I specifically like the interaction part. Hands on
experience, whilst skipping the wow-stuff (well, I will mention the
possibilities, supplying some links, but no more than a couple of minutes.).
And as side effect I now have to get acquainted to github. Like it. Thanks a
lot!
On 2011-10-24 00:18:45 -0700, Heinrich Apfelmus said:
Actually, polymorphism is not implicit in System F,
Of course; take a look at the explicit type-application {|t|} in the
second link I posted.
On 2011-10-24 00:18:45 -0700, Heinrich Apfelmus said:
With this in mind, it's clear that
An interactive program that wants to handle interrupt itself should not
rely on default signal behavior, because that has no idea where to stop
(and I would argue that attempting to coerce interactive signals into
exceptions within the program is not the right way to do things, because
they're
On 10/25/11 3:54 AM, Gregory Collins wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, wren ng thorntonw...@freegeek.org wrote:
I'm not so sure about that exemption. The experimental stability level
seems to be the norm on Hackage and often means I use this for real
projects, but because I use it for
Hey everyone,
What is the difference between MonadPlus and Alternative? In my mind, it would
make sense for the difference to be that the former provides and semantics
(i.e., x `mplus` y means do both x and y) whereas the latter provides or
semantics (i.e., x | y means do x or y but not
MonadPlus is `or` semantics, as is Alternative. It does, indeed, reflect
the Applicative/Monad difference.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey everyone,
What is the difference between MonadPlus and Alternative? In my mind, it
would make sense
10 matches
Mail list logo
