ndmitchell:
> > OK. i'm just trying to get an intuition for the analysis.
>
> Catch is defined by a small Haskell program. You can write a small
> Haskell evaluation for a Core language. The idea is to write the
> QuickCheck style property, then proceed using Haskell style proof
> steps. The chec
> OK. i'm just trying to get an intuition for the analysis.
Catch is defined by a small Haskell program. You can write a small
Haskell evaluation for a Core language. The idea is to write the
QuickCheck style property, then proceed using Haskell style proof
steps. The checker is recursive - it ass
ndmitchell:
> >> If Catch says your program will not crash, then it will not crash. I
> >> even gave an argument for correctness in the final appendix of my
> >> thesis http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/thesis/ (pages 175-207). Of
> >> course, there are engineering concerns (perhaps your Haskell co
>> If Catch says your program will not crash, then it will not crash. I
>> even gave an argument for correctness in the final appendix of my
>> thesis http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/thesis/ (pages 175-207). Of
>> course, there are engineering concerns (perhaps your Haskell compiler
>> will mis-t
ndmitchell:
> >> Catch already does assertion checking (1). Its runtime on moderate to
> >> small programs (HsColour in particular) is far less than the time GHC
> >> takes to compile them, and I still have no idea what its runtime is on
> >> enormous programs (2). An analysis can be whole program
>> Catch already does assertion checking (1). Its runtime on moderate to
>> small programs (HsColour in particular) is far less than the time GHC
>> takes to compile them, and I still have no idea what its runtime is on
>> enormous programs (2). An analysis can be whole program and can be
>> slow,
> Catch already does assertion checking (1). Its runtime on moderate to
> small programs (HsColour in particular) is far less than the time GHC
> takes to compile them, and I still have no idea what its runtime is on
> enormous programs (2). An analysis can be whole program and can be
> slow, one d
> > Do you really want exhaustiveness, or is what you actually want safety?
>
> I want both. Exhaustiveness checking now and forever, because it's a
> modular property. Safety when somebody gets around to implementing
> whole-program analysis in the compiler I use, when I feel like waiting
> aro
Ok, I went with the preprocessor solution only. It is simple, stupid and
works well enough ... and template haskell alternative needs it anyway
not to be too unportable.
Both template haskell alternatives reported "Pattern match(es) are
non-exhaustive" of their own. The second alternative more
On 21/05/2009 00:38, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
Unfortunately, since the release of 6.10.3, still more problems have
come to light in the 6.10 branch. We are therefore planning to do a
6.10.4 release.
For 6.10.4, we will only consider fixes for serious bugs that cannot be
easily worked around. S
10 matches
Mail list logo
