Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> By definition, if you follow the standard you can't be wrong. :)
> But the standard can be wrong. Perhaps this is a typo in the report?
I think I looked at this a while back. The standard is kaput. It gets even
worse if you try to make sense of the definitions of suc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Weber writes (on the ghc-users list):
> > I'm slightly puzzled about the definition of list enumerations in
> > GHC (and possibly other Haskell implementations)...
> >
> > ``[0.0, 2 .. 9] :: [Float]''
> > ==> [0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0]
> >
> > Never
Michael Weber writes (on the ghc-users list):
> I'm slightly puzzled about the definition of list enumerations in
> GHC (and possibly other Haskell implementations)...
>
> ``[0.0, 2 .. 9] :: [Float]''
> ==> [0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0]
>
> Nevertheless, this behaviour is defined by the
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
PPDP 2000
2nd International Conference on
Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming
Montréal, Canada
September 20-22, 2000
The profiling imports were in the wrong place in the InstallShield for
4.08 (now fixed).
If you've been bitten and don't fancy re-downloading, then just move the
contents of \ghc\ghc-4.08\imports into
\ghc\ghc-4.08\lib\imports, and all should be fine.
--
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | wit, n. educated
