Sent from my iPad
On Nov 15, 2011, at 7:18 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 11/15/11 12:33 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> Trouble is, what type does this have?
>> f x = x {}
>>
>> Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> f :: a -> a
>>
>> Ian Lynagh wrote:
That
On 11/15/11 12:33 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Trouble is, what type does this have?
f x = x {}
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
f :: a -> a
Ian Lynagh wrote:
That wouldn't help the original poster, as it is incompatible with
f :: Foo Clean -> Foo Dirty
Only because in t
Serge
I'm afraid I don't really follow your proposal in detail, but I think it may be
a version of the proposal described here
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DefaultSuperclassInstances
Perhaps you could see if the design there would meet your goals.
Simon
| -Original Mess
Quoting Yitzchak Gale :
Yes. The translation of record updates given in the Report
makes perfect sense for {}. It is only forbidden by
"n >= 1", but no reason is given for that restriction.
It doesn't make sense to me. The translation explodes a value into a
case statement over its construct
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Trouble is, what type does this have?
f x = x {}
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> f :: a -> a
Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> That wouldn't help the original poster, as it is incompatible with
>> f :: Foo Clean -> Foo Dirty
Only because in that expression the type of x is no
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:47:18PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
You could do all this with git clones, but it would mean extra
shuffling of patches around. If you're happy with that, then that's
fine - use whatever scheme you're more comfortable with.
There's a script in git's contrib director
On 15/11/2011 10:21, Rustom Mody wrote:
I am building ghc from source.
The building page
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/Using#Sourcetreesandbuildtrees
mentions lndir for separating source trees from build trees.
Given how much detail is generally given for individual commands
| > > Trouble is, what type does this have?
| > >
| > > f x = x {}
| >
| > f :: a -> a
|
| That wouldn't help the original poster, as it is incompatible with
| f :: Foo Clean -> Foo Dirty
Ah! *That* is why I said it was awkward. Thanks Ian.
Simon
___
Hmm yes. Fair enough. Does anyone care enough? I can see (now) that it
wouldn't really be hard.
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Yitzchak Gale
| Sent: 15 November 2011 11:16
| To: Ma
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:34:01AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> > Trouble is, what type does this have?
> >
> > f x = x {}
>
> f :: a -> a
That wouldn't help the original poster, as it is incompatible with
f :: Foo Clean -> Foo D
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> Trouble is, what type does this have?
>> f x = x {}
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Empty record patterns {} are permitted, even for types
> that are not declared with named fields.
> So I don't see why an empty record update should
> require the type to be declared wit
I am building ghc from source.
The building page
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/Using#Sourcetreesandbuildtrees
mentions lndir for separating source trees from build trees.
Given how much detail is generally given for individual commands eg
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wi
On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Trouble is, what type does this have?
>
> f x = x {}
f :: a -> a
Empty record patterns {} are permitted, even for types that are not declared
with named fields. So I don't see why an empty record update should require
the type to b
13 matches
Mail list logo
