(see the FunctionalDependencies page for background omitted here)
One of the problems with the relaxed coverage condition implemented
by GHC and Hugs is a loss of confluence. Here is a slightly cut-down
version of Ex. 18 from the FD-CHR paper:
class B a b | a - b
class C a b c |
On 07 April 2006 22:38, Andy Gill wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Rene de Visser wrote:
Hello,
As deepSeq has a non local effect, I think it requires a non-local
source transformation to implement it. One option would be for the
compiler to create a second deepSeq version of every
Ross Paterson writes:
(see the FunctionalDependencies page for background omitted here)
One of the problems with the relaxed coverage condition implemented
by GHC and Hugs is a loss of confluence. Here is a slightly cut-down
version of Ex. 18 from the FD-CHR paper:
class B a
On 09 April 2006 16:02, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That sounds hard to program with - surely you want to stop the
program in order to clean up? Otherwise the program is going to
continue working, generating more exit handlers, and we might never
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
instance B a b = C [a] b Bool
Starting from a constraint set C [a] b Bool, C [a] c d,
there is no implication that d=Bool
(you could add: 'instance B a b = C [a] b Char' without violating
FD consistency).
These instances
Hi all,
Manuel Chakravarty wrote:
My conclusion is that we should not include FDs or ATs into the
standard at the moment. Standardising FDs as a stopgap measure may
easily put us into the same situation that we are having with
records at the moment.
Nobody is really happy with it, but
Interesting! It'd be great if you've found a simpler more uniform rule.
(Which you seem to be getting rather good at.)Let's see if you can
convince Martin, first, and then articulate the proposed rules. I'll
look fwd to that.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Suppose I want to do some action with a temporary file:
bracket
newTempFile
(\f - removeTempFile f)
(\f - doSomethingWith f)
Under your scheme, this code doesn't get to remove its temporary file on
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:25 AM, John Meacham wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:10:18AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
It's not *completely* straightforward to implement, at least in
GHC, and
at least if you want to implement it in a modular way (i.e. without
touching lots of different parts of the
You're assuming some particular representation where there are
bits to steal. I don't like this at all. I think tying deepSeq
to some particular implementation techniques is a reall *BAD* idea.
Any function that is not defineable in (pure) Haskell should be viewed
with utmost suspicion. The
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 02:40:44PM -0700, Andy Gill wrote:
it is unlikely it will even be possible to implement in jhc without
radical changes to its internals. there is just no where to attach
a bit
to, and even if there were, there is no generic way to evaluate
something to WHNF, or even a
On 4/10/06, Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other libraries should Haskell' support, and what are their
requirements?
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/CollectionClassFramework
There are two range arguments here, IIUC.
Jim
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
