On 11 August 2004 20:45, Remi Turk wrote:
> But as long as GMP doesn't mind about being abused the way my
> most recent util.c does, I can get away with the
> mp_set_memory_functions-trick, can't I?
Not really. You can't let GMP realloc() a memory block that was
allocated using one method, with
On 11 August 2004 18:24, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
> "Jon Fairbairn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>> [1] What's the "Do" doing there anyway? You end up writing
>> withSocketsDo$do, and we could do without the Do$do.
>>
>
> Yes, that just doesn't fly, does it? withSocketsDo in user
> code beca
On 11 August 2004 14:19, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Right. If listenOn and accept are in Network, sClose should be in
> there too. That would at least provide an API which is usable for the
> simplest programs.
Sounds reasonable. I'll add it.
> OTOH, the core problem with Network.recvFrom is esse
Been having a bit of a discussion in the Cafe... Just wondered what
GHC specific issues would be involved with assuming all classes are closed.
I am thinking that there is no real dis-advantage to considering all
classes closed within their current context (IE all the imports to
the current modul
Hello!
Recently I was trying to write a variadic function composition operator in
Haskell. I managed to produce a version with such an interface:
runF (compose f1 f2 f3 ... fn) == f1 . f2 . f3 . ... . fn
I believe it is impossible to remove 'runF' without loosing generality
and introducing
I forgot to attach the code. Here it is.
Tom
--
.signature: Too many levels of symbolic links
{-# OPTIONS -fglasgow-exts #-}
{-# OPTIONS -fallow-undecidable-instances #-}
module Comp where
newtype F a b = F { runF :: a -> b }
class Fun f a b | f -> a, f -> b where
apply :: f -> a -> b
