On Tuesday 06 July 2010 07:04:18, wren ng thornton wrote:
> Cabal has a partial listing embedded in its code, though I can't seem to
> find a textual version at the moment. In general, Hugs has all the
> features of GHC 6.6: FFI, CPP, MPTCs, FunDeps, OverlappingInstances,...
> I'm forgetting off-ha
wren ng thornton writes:
>> A bit more seriously: is there any listing anywhere of which extensions
>> Hugs supports?
> Cabal has a partial listing embedded in its code, though I can't seem
> to find a textual version at the moment. In general, Hugs has all the
> features of GHC 6.6: FFI, CPP, M
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Stephen Tetley writes:
On 3 July 2010 14:00, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
So this argument isn't valid ;-)
I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
Actually, how would you call it i
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Stephen Tetley writes:
I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
People still use Hugs? :p
MPJ uses it for teaching Haskell because it's a lot easier to install
than GHC. I've heard t
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic writes:
> People still use Hugs? :p
Well, I just did a quick count of Haskell libraries in Debian and Ubuntu
(as a sort of comment to Don's blog post), but I forgot Hugs. It seems
to be installed on 6000 Ubuntu-respondents, compared to 17000
installations of GHC, for a 25%
Stephen Tetley writes:
> On 3 July 2010 14:00, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>
>> So this argument isn't valid ;-)
>
> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
Actually, how would you call it in Hugs? Just start it
On 3 July 2010 14:18, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> Stephen Tetley writes:
>
>> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
>> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
>
> People still use Hugs? :p
>
> A bit more seriously: is there any listing anywhere of which
People still use Hugs? :p
Is there another option for quick prototyping on iPhone?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Stephen Tetley writes:
> I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
> remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
People still use Hugs? :p
A bit more seriously: is there any listing anywhere of which extensions
Hugs supports?
Definitely serious: if anything, I
On 3 July 2010 14:00, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> So this argument isn't valid ;-)
Hi Ivan
I think it was Hugs compliant as least for some revisions - I seem to
remember looking at it before I switched to GHC.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-
Don Stewart writes:
>
> * Maintaining Haskell98 compatability. Keep it simple. (See
>regex-posix's mistakes here)
At the risk of resurrecting an old (albeit unfinished) thread, I've just
discovered that FGL is actually not Haskell98 compatible anyway, as it
utilised the following extensions:
On 10 June 2010 12:38, sterl wrote:
> There's a big range of issues here, and to be honest I'm not sure if our
> ability to distinguished between them is helped by the title of this thread,
> which somewhat begs the question. That is to say, it isn't clear to me that
> calling the proposed changes
There's a big range of issues here, and to be honest I'm not sure if our
ability to distinguished between them is helped by the title of this
thread, which somewhat begs the question. That is to say, it isn't clear
to me that calling the proposed changes to the fgl "rewriting a library"
is nece
Jeremy Shaw writes:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> wrote:
>
>> I recall having a discussion with either you or someone else from the
>> happstack team about why it isn't applicable there, but the QuickCheck
>> problem can be solved in the general case by having its dep
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
wrote:
> I recall having a discussion with either you or someone else from the
> happstack team about why it isn't applicable there, but the QuickCheck
> problem can be solved in the general case by having its dependency be a
> compile-time-on
Jeremy Shaw writes:
> I don't really see this listed on your list, but maybe I missed it.
>
> Happstack has been affected by QuickCheck 1 -> QuickCheck 2, parsec 2
> -> 3, and HaXml 1.13 -> 1.20.
>
> Those packages are common, and people often want to use happstack with
> other libraries that als
I don't really see this listed on your list, but maybe I missed it.
Happstack has been affected by QuickCheck 1 -> QuickCheck 2, parsec 2
-> 3, and HaXml 1.13 -> 1.20.
Those packages are common, and people often want to use happstack with
other libraries that also use those packages. The problem
On 06/08/10 11:08, Don Stewart wrote:
Are there any other arguments I'm missing?
Also parsec3 had an issue as an upgrade that it was slower at runtime
(at least for a few years). (and some people were using parsec in the
real world for performance-critical applications.)
-Isaac
___
Hello all
While new libraries develop at pace, their documentation rarely does;
so I'd have to disagree with John's claim that re-naming libraries
makes development by new users harder. I'd argue that having tutorials
not work for later revisions is more confusing than having various
packages doin
19 matches
Mail list logo
