On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:50:57PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> That's true. I guess what you're saying is that this is a problem for
> you, and your life would be easier if we supported Latin-1 as an
> encoding for source files again. That's fine - as I mentioned, I only
> restricted it to UT
Cherished users
Simon and I are both on holiday next week, so you won't hear from GHC HQ
during that time. Happy Haskell hacking!
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/gla
Brian,
Also, the rule would not be quite as simple as you make it out to
be,
since
forall a. (forall b. Foo a b => a -> b) -> Int
is a legal type, for example.
Is it? GHCi gives me an error if I try typing a function like that.
{-# OPTIONS -fglasgow-exts #-}
class Foo a b
f :: for
Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm not sure I see the problem - the I/O library doesn't do unicode
encoding/decoding, it always just takes the low 8 bits of each
character, hence truncating Unicode to Latin-1. If you restrict
yourself to Latin-1 characters in string literals, th
Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm not sure I see the problem - the I/O library doesn't do unicode
encoding/decoding, it always just takes the low 8 bits of each
character, hence truncating Unicode to Latin-1. If you restrict
yourself to Latin-1 characters in string literals, then I/O will work as
expec
Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Christian Maeder wrote:
I'm tempted to replace "รค" bei "\228" in literals. What does haddock
do with utf-8 in comments? Will DrIFT -- using read- and writeFile --
still work correctly?
The problem I fear is that writeFile does not produce a utf-
David Menendez wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould writes:
Also, the rule would not be quite as simple as you make it out to be,
since
forall a. (forall b. Foo a b => a -> b) -> Int
is a legal type, for example.
Is it? GHCi gives me an error if I try typing a function like that.
{-# OPTIONS -fgl
| I am curious if rules pragmas are applied before or after newtype
| desugaring?
The matching function respects newtypes.
| basically what I want to know is if I have a newtype of an
| Int say, and make a rule acting on the newtype, will it be applied to
| any Int as well?
No, it shouldn't be.
