Is that true... what about:
>module Main where
>
>import Control.Concurrent.MVar
>import System.Mem.Weak
>
>myFinalizer :: MVar () -> IO ()
>myFinalizer m = do
>putMVar m ()
>return ()
>
>createMyFinalizer :: IO (MVar (),Weak ())
>createMyFinalizer = do
>m <- newMVar ()
>w <- mkWeak
Hi,
I've a file ATC/Sml_cats.hs that does not compile (see below) with the
flag -fno-monomorphism-restriction (ghc 6.2.2), whereas it compiles fine
without that option. Since I want to use -fno-monomorphism-restriction
for other files (from programatica) I've a problem, because there is no
opti
> On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:48 +0100, Frank-Andre Riess wrote:
>> Hi there folks,
>>
>> once again, I've got a question related to Happy (I've got version 1.13
>> at
>> the moment).
>> Maybe, it's even more a question on formal languages, but well...
>> How can I write a grammar that can cope with u
> On 2004 nov 22, at 17:48, Frank-Andre Riess wrote:
>
>> Hi there folks,
>>
>> once again, I've got a question related to Happy (I've got version
>> 1.13 at
>> the moment).
>> Maybe, it's even more a question on formal languages, but well...
>> How can I write a grammar that can cope with user-def
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 02:39, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> > What about putting this thing on the Haskell Wiki?
>
> Feel free to do so. I recently noted that some version of GHC (6.3?)
> ships with a runghc program, so this problem will most
Duncan Coutts writes:
> you cannot solve the finalisers problem just by running
> the finaliser thread to completion (or it'd be done that
> way already!)
I guess, I was approaching the problem from the wrong side.
What I am really interested in are the implications of this
fact for the progra
