did util.memo vanish?

2004-12-06 Thread Adam Megacz
Hrm, is the GHC "magic memo function" still around? In 5.0.4 it was in util, but I can't seem to find it in 6.2.2. - a -- I wrote my own mail server and it still has a few bugs. If you send me a message and it bounces, please forward the bounce message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! __

RE: building cygwin

2004-12-06 Thread Simon Marlow
On 04 December 2004 01:49, Ben Kavanagh wrote: > I'm going to create a standard dist for cygwin. > > In order to do so, according to the porting guide I need to build a > set of .hc files with mingw32(same hardware) and then use hc-build > with those. To create the hc files from mingw32 for use w

RE: A question about the "awkward squad"

2004-12-06 Thread Simon Marlow
On 04 December 2004 04:27, Judah Jacobson wrote: > What exactly are redex's, in this context, Any expression which can be beta-reduced or case-reduced. > and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them? I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ might know. > Or ar

RE: did util.memo vanish?

2004-12-06 Thread Simon Marlow
On 06 December 2004 06:03, Adam Megacz wrote: > Hrm, is the GHC "magic memo function" still around? In 5.0.4 it was > in util, but I can't seem to find it in 6.2.2. It's still there in module Memo, in the util package. It's scheduled for demolition in 6.6. Cheers, Simon ___

RE: A question about the "awkward squad"

2004-12-06 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
| > and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them? | | I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ | might know. Yes, it's very careful not to duplicate a redex, except for ones of known bounded size, like x +# y, where sharing the work costs more than duplicating in

RE: A question about the "awkward squad"

2004-12-06 Thread Simon Marlow
On 06 December 2004 13:25, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >>> and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them? >> >> I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ >> might know. > > Yes, it's very careful not to duplicate a redex, except for ones of > known bounded size, lik

Re: building cygwin

2004-12-06 Thread Sven Panne
Simon Marlow wrote: [...] I doubt it'll be trivial - probably lots of #ifdef mingw32_TARGET_OS will need to change to #if defined(mingw32_TARGET_OS) || defined(cygwin_TARGET_OS) [...] Hmmm, having some fragile OS-dependent #ifdefs is not the way to go. While you are there, every #ifdef