Hi Cristian,
On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Cristian Perfumo wrote:
I was wondering if it handles per-thread information when you have
more than one thread involved. (Actually the question is not related
to the graphical tool, but the announcement triggered it).
The prof2dot tool only knows
|But I can’t follow your explanation completely. When I use the variant
|with Integer, ghc will not use the instance because (1::Num a => a) is
|too general.
|
|But why does it use the Integral i-Instance in the working variant?
|(1::Num a=> a) is also more general than (1::Integral i => i), isn’t
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 01.04.2008, 17:53 +0100 schrieb Claus Reinke:
> 'Integer -> a' is more concrete, less general than 'i -> a',
> so it matches fewer types.
>
> '1 :: Num a => a' is more general than 'Integer'.
>
> |No instance for (More (t -> Integer))
> | arising from a use of `add
'Integer -> a' is more concrete, less general than 'i -> a',
so it matches fewer types.
'1 :: Num a => a' is more general than 'Integer'.
|No instance for (More (t -> Integer))
| arising from a use of `addd' at test.hs:19:17-22
if nothing forces the parameter (!) to be Integer, the
mo
Hi,
I was told on #haskell that I should bring this up here, to ask whether
this is a bug in ghc6 or otherwise explain this to me.
I’m trying to write the function "addd" which takes an arbitrary number
of Integer arguments and returns the sum. This code works:
-- Try 1
class More a where
I was wondering if it handles per-thread information when you have more than
one thread involved. (Actually the question is not related to the graphical
tool, but the announcement triggered it).
Best.
Cristian
2008/3/8 Gregory Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> I am pleased to announce the first r
Not reliably, no. GHC's current CSE is rather opportunistic: we take the
opportunity if it's presented in the form
let x = e in let y = e in
A proper CSE pass would be a nice, containable, project.
Simon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Conal Elliott
Sent: 29
Christian Maeder wrote:
> could the actual change-diff of patches also be posted via
> the list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just see that patches sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] have a link to
the actual patch. I.e.
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/cabal-install/_darcs/patches/20080329194426-adfee-0
