Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 01:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Jäger wrote: > > Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO, > > what exactly is unsafe about it? > > It can create "pure values" that trigger side effects during their > evaluation. This can be abused to do IO outside of an

Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

> Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO, > what exactly is unsafe about it? It can create "pure values" that trigger side effects during their evaluation. This can be abused to do IO outside of an IO monad (actually, hGetContents can already be used for that purpose).

Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

Andre Pang wrote: On 10/06/2005, at 11:16 AM, Remi Turk wrote: Are you sure you're not talking about unsafePerformIO? System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO:: IO a -> a System.IO.Unsafe.unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a -> IO a [written to Lennert Augustsson]: yes, I think you misread unsafeInter

Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

On 10/06/2005, at 11:16 AM, Remi Turk wrote: Are you sure you're not talking about unsafePerformIO? System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO:: IO a -> a System.IO.Unsafe.unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a -> IO a [written to Lennert Augustsson]: yes, I think you misread unsafeInterleaveIO as unsafePer

Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 07:32:42PM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote: > Andre Pang wrote: > >G'day all, > > > >Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO, > >what exactly is unsafe about it? > You pick. :) > > It can break referential transparency. It can break type safety

Re: unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

You pick. :) It can break referential transparency. It can break type safety. -- Lennart Andre Pang wrote: G'day all, Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO, what exactly is unsafe about it? ___ Glasgow-ha

unsafeness of unsafeInterleaveIO

G'day all, Just looking at the documentation for System.IO.unsafeInterleaveIO, what exactly is unsafe about it? -- % Andre Pang : trust.in.love.to.save ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@h

benchmarking 6.4 vs 5.02.3

I wrote about ghc-5.02.1 taking 13 times less memory than ghc-6.4 to compute a certain example like merge-sort. Now, I compare ghc-5.02.3 and ghc-6.4 on the same machine. The needed time and memory occur the same all right. The resources grow almost as O(n*log(n)), as expected. My error

5.02.3 built

I managed to install ghc-5.02.3 i86x binary on recent Debian Linux. It required libreadline.so.3, and I linked it symbolically to existing libreadline.so.4.3, Similarly, libncurses.so.4 linked to higher. My docon-2.06 looks to build and run correct under all this. Now, we shall compa

RE: 5.02

On 10 June 2005 11:36, Christian Maeder wrote: > Simon Marlow wrote: >> On 10 June 2005 08:58, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote: >> >>> Now, I indeed, intend to compare 6.4 to 5.02 on several examples, >>> downloaded ghc-5.02.3 and tried to make it with ghc-6.4 >> >> Yes, that's unlikely

Re: 5.02

Christian Maeder wrote: > 6.4 produces better and faster code than 6.2.2 and 5.04.2 for our > application. "better" was supposed to mean "smaller binaries" ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/ma

Re: 5.02

Simon Marlow wrote: > On 10 June 2005 08:58, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote: > >>Now, I indeed, intend to compare 6.4 to 5.02 on several examples, >>downloaded >> ghc-5.02.3 and tried to make it with ghc-6.4 > > Yes, that's unlikely to work. I was able to install the binaries from ghc-5

RE: 5.02

On 10 June 2005 08:58, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote: > Now, I indeed, intend to compare 6.4 to 5.02 on several examples, > downloaded >ghc-5.02.3 and tried to make it with ghc-6.4 Yes, that's unlikely to work. Cheers, Simon ___ Gla

runghc <- ghc

I wrote recently about replacing "runghc configure" with "ghc -configure" and such. But I observe now `runhaskell' instead of `runghc' in docs on Cabal. I always wrote a typo runghc (probably, had copied it from somewhere), and it works! `runhaskell' may make difference to my suggestion,

runghc <- ghc

Dear GHC developers, Why do you introduce the runghc command for Cabal, while everyting is done by the `ghc' driver ? We haveghc -c ghc --make ... Cabal is a part of GHC. So, it is natural to continue: ghc

5.02

On Jun 09, 2005 Simon Marlow wrote: > On 09 June 2005 11:47, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote: > > >> A difference of 2.5Mb is really very small. If you could show that > >> the space usage is linear in one case and flat in another, then we > >> have a problem. > > > > But a ratio 2600 K / 200 K fo