Ashley writes
| > I was hoping to do something similar for 'do' notation by redefining
| > (>>), (>>=) etc., but unfortunately GHC is quite insistent
| that 'do' notation quite specifically refers to GHC.Base.Monad
Dylan replies
| I'm surprised that ghc uses the fromInteger and fromRational
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:31:38PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> I have recently been experimenting writing code that replaces large
> chunks of the Prelude, compiling with -fno-implicit-prelude. I notice
> that I can happily redefine numeric literals simply by creating functions
> called 'fro
At 2002-05-14 03:57, Simon Marlow wrote:
>It turns out that the compiler "bug" is really just the compiler being a
>bit loose with the IO monad - it freely translates the original
>definition of evaluate using 'seq' into the slightly less strict version
>by pushing the 'seq' through the state lam
> At 2002-05-14 02:58, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> >I must admit I can't think of any compelling reasons for the change,
> >other than the fact that this is functionality that we don't
> have at the
> >moment, and therefore might be useful. Opinions?
>
> I need a function that does this:
>
>
At 2002-05-14 02:58, Simon Marlow wrote:
>I must admit I can't think of any compelling reasons for the change,
>other than the fact that this is functionality that we don't have at the
>moment, and therefore might be useful. Opinions?
I need a function that does this:
evaluate :: a -> IO a
> >This is bizarre: the definition of evaluate in Exception is
> exactly the
> >one you gave above, yet they behave differently. You may
> have uncovered
> >a compiler bug, I'll look into it.
>
> I might ask which is correct: according to the rules for seq,
> "evaluate'
> undefined" should b
At 2002-05-14 02:24, Simon Marlow wrote:
>This is bizarre: the definition of evaluate in Exception is exactly the
>one you gave above, yet they behave differently. You may have uncovered
>a compiler bug, I'll look into it.
I might ask which is correct: according to the rules for seq, "evaluate'
> At 2002-05-13 22:07, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>
> >I've noticed something a bit unusual about Exception.catch.
>
> Curiously, the definition of Exception.evaluate given in the GHC
> Libraries documentation sec. 5.12.3 is not that actually
> implemented by
> GHC.
>
> evaluate' :: a -> I
> >The idea is
> >that if you want to use Exceptions in their full glory, you:
> ...
> > import qualified Exception
>
> I've noticed something a bit unusual about Exception.catch.
> It seems it
> can't catch "return undefined" by itself. Consider these
> values of type
> "IO String":
>
At 2002-05-13 22:07, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>I've noticed something a bit unusual about Exception.catch.
Curiously, the definition of Exception.evaluate given in the GHC
Libraries documentation sec. 5.12.3 is not that actually implemented by
GHC.
evaluate' :: a -> IO a;
evaluat
10 matches
Mail list logo
