Re: ghci, sourcing

2006-06-05 Thread wld
Hi, On 6/5/06, Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Is there a way to source a file in ghci? I have a series of initialization commands which I would like to run every time I do a certain set of experiments, and I've put them in a file. Is it best just to copy and paste the file into g

ghci, sourcing

2006-06-05 Thread Frederik Eaton
Hi, Is there a way to source a file in ghci? I have a series of initialization commands which I would like to run every time I do a certain set of experiments, and I've put them in a file. Is it best just to copy and paste the file into ghci? Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/ __

Re: Bug? Or at least a better error message?

2006-06-05 Thread Brian Hulley
Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote: Brian Hulley wrote: I must admit I can't understand where the ambiguity actually is. bar has been defined as a -> Int, so surely anything on the rhs of an equation for an instance of the bar method in Foo is therefore an Int also, so having to explicitly write 1::I

Re: Bug? Or at least a better error message?

2006-06-05 Thread Geoffrey Alan Washburn
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: The error message about ambiguity is just what you'd expect. So it seems that this is all fine. Right, I should have been more clear on that perhaps. Thanks! ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskel

Re: Bug? Or at least a better error message?

2006-06-05 Thread Geoffrey Alan Washburn
Brian Hulley wrote: I must admit I can't understand where the ambiguity actually is. bar has been defined as a -> Int, so surely anything on the rhs of an equation for an instance of the bar method in Foo is therefore an Int also, so having to explicitly write 1::Int seems superfluous.

Re: Bug? Or at least a better error message?

2006-06-05 Thread Brian Hulley
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: Right. The crash was definitely a bug, but it seems to have been fixed. The error message about ambiguity is just what you'd expect. I must admit I can't understand where the ambiguity actually is. bar has been defined as a -> Int, so surely anything on the rhs of a

RE: Bug? Or at least a better error message?

2006-06-05 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Right. The crash was definitely a bug, but it seems to have been fixed. The error message about ambiguity is just what you'd expect. So it seems that this is all fine. Simon | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf O

RE: recursive import

2006-06-05 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
I don't know about Cabal, but probably a Cabal-er can reply. Simon | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serge D. Mechveliani | Sent: 05 June 2006 13:45 | To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: recursive im

recursive import

2006-06-05 Thread Serge D. Mechveliani
Concering the current state of recursive import, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 Jun 2006 > [..] > > GHC's module-at-a-time compilation model means that GHC needs an hs-boot > file to "get started". The manual tries to explain what you can and > can't do. If you follow the rul

RE: recursive import

2006-06-05 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Haskell the language allows arbitrary recursive modules. Implementations differ in how they support this. GHC's module-at-a-time compilation model means that GHC needs an hs-boot file to "get started". The manual tries to explain what you can and can't do. If you follow the rules it works pretty