On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:02:11 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2007, at 10:54 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:39:51 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2007, at 10:14 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:49:16 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2007, at 5:01 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
By portable I mean: works on the same machine, with the same OS,
but with different Haskell implementation.
Ah, you can't. But, again, what are you trying to do? Re-compiling
your software for each implementation seems like a perfectly
reasonable thing to do, given the differences between them.
Recompiling my software will not save a function created by the
software at runtime.
Which is a different problem than the one solved by dynamic linking.
Again, why do you want to do this?
I think they are not as different as you think they are.
I think they're very different --- dynamic libraries can be built by
running the compiler, whatever you're asking for can't.
More generally, dynamic libraries are supported by every production-
quality compiled language in existence; I know of no language that can
do what you're asking for.
I think, again, that what you really want is a reason to discredit
Haskell.
A simple question:
Can you write the value of x to a file where x = (1:x) ?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
