On 10/10/2009 18:59, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
well, I think that the fact that we seem to have a program context
that can distinguish f1 from f2 is worth discussing because I
would have thought that in a pure language they are interchangable.
The question is, does the context in Oleg's
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 13:58 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Duncan has found a definition of hGetContents that explains why it has
surprising behaviour, and that's very nice because it lets us write the
compilers that we want to write, and we get to tell the users to stop
moaning because the
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 15:45 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I've not yet seen anyone put forward any practical programs that have
confusing behaviour but were not written deliberately to be as wacky as
possible and avoid all the safety mechanism.
The standard use case for hGetContents is
On 11/10/2009 09:26, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Simon Marlow:
Oleg's example is quite close, don't you think?
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2009-March/021064.html
Ah yes, if you have two lazy input streams both referring to the same
underlying stream, that is enough to
* Simon Marlow:
Oleg's example is quite close, don't you think?
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2009-March/021064.html
Ah yes, if you have two lazy input streams both referring to the same
underlying stream, that is enough to demonstrate a problem. As for
whether Oleg's
Hmm, Don't you think forkIO deserves some of the same complaints as
unsafeInterleaveIO? Things happen in a nondeterministic order!
I think what irritates us about unsafeInterleaveIO is that it's IO that
tinkers with the internals of the Haskell evaluation system. The OS
can't do it: in a C
Hello,
well, I think that the fact that we seem to have a program context
that can distinguish f1 from f2 is worth discussing because I
would have thought that in a pure language they are interchangable.
The question is, does the context in Oleg's example really distinguish
between f1 and f2?
On 03/10/2009 19:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nicolas Pouillard:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Oct 06 14:59:06 +0200 2009:
On 03/10/2009 19:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nicolas Pouillard:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle
On 06/10/2009 14:18, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Oct 06 14:59:06 +0200 2009:
On 03/10/2009 19:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nicolas Pouillard:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 15:18 +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
The reason it's hard is that to demonstrate a difference you have to get
the lazy I/O to commute with some other I/O, and GHC will never do that.
If you find a way to do it, then we'll probably consider it a bug in GHC.
On 16/09/2009 21:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations
which are
On 17/09/2009 13:58, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Mon Sep 21 11:41:38 +0200 2009:
On 16/09/2009 21:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Mon Sep 21 11:52:41 +0200 2009:
On 17/09/2009 13:58, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the
fw:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations
which are expected to be valid in a pure language.)
* Don Stewart:
fw:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations
which are expected to be valid in a
18 matches
Mail list logo
