On 11/01/2012, at 19:28, Dan Doel wrote:
> Then I'm afraid I still don't understand the difference. Is it that
> case in core always evaluates? So:
>
>case undefined of x -> ...
>
> blows up, while
>
>case (# undefined #) of (# x #) -> ...
>
> does not?
Yes.
> Also, if so, how is (co
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 16:18, Dan Doel wrote:
>>
>> Copying the list, sorry. I have a lot of trouble replying correctly
>> with gmail's interface for some reason. :)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Dan Doel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012
On January 11, 2012 08:41:04 Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 16:18, Dan Doel wrote:
> > Does the difference have to do with unboxed types? For instance:
> > foo :: () -> Int#
> > foo _ = foo ()
> > bar :: () -> (# Int# #)
> > bar _ = (# foo () #)
> >
> > baz = case ba
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:41:11PM +0400, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
> People,
>
> GHC provides some extensions for kinds.
> Does this make possible different kinds, for example, for `*' ?
Terms have types, and types have kinds. (*) is a term, so it has a
type, not a kind.
> Prelude.Num has
On 10/01/2012 16:18, Dan Doel wrote:
Copying the list, sorry. I have a lot of trouble replying correctly
with gmail's interface for some reason. :)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Dan Doel wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09/01/2012 04:46, wren ng thornton wro
Am 11. Januar 2012 08:42 schrieb Isaac Dupree <
m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org>:
> On 01/10/2012 05:06 AM, Greg Weber wrote:
>
>> Some of your comments seem to not fully recognize the name-spacing (plus
>> simple type resolution) aspect of this proposal that I probably didn't
>> explain well eno
I added your relevant previous notes to the wiki page. I have no idea if
what you said about type inference is right or wrong. I don't think that
record fields can be called scope resolution in a normal sense - the scope
is guaranteed to resolve without conflict (unless the user incorrectly
types t
