On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
> I'd think apple would care about linker performance... I'm even a
> little surprised Xcode doesn't have something better than a lightly
> hacked gnu ld.
Someone mentioned that it was on their wish-list at LLVM 2010 conference...
it's hinted
On 1/26/12 1:30 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Thijs Alkemade
wrote:
Let me try to describe the goal better. The intended users are people
new to Haskell or people working with existing code they are not
familiar with.
Also me. I want this feature. It pretty much singl
On 1/26/12 10:01 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 1/24/12 10:25 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:
This is related but somewhat tangential --
*Why isn't there a tryReadChan?* It looks like it would be implementable
with the current Chan representation in terms of tryTakeMVar. Especially
since isEmptyChan is
On 1/24/12 10:25 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:
This is related but somewhat tangential --
*Why isn't there a tryReadChan?* It looks like it would be implementable
with the current Chan representation in terms of tryTakeMVar. Especially
since isEmptyChan is deprecated this would be nice to have.
On 1/23/12 3:19 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Heka Treep's message of Mon Jan 23 15:11:51 -0500 2012:
actor mbox = do
empty<- atomically $ isEmptyTChan mbox
if empty
then actor mbox
else do
val<- atomically $ readTChan mbox
Uh, don't you want to combine isEmpty
Ryan Newton gmail.com> writes:
>
> I admit I'm a big fan of polymorphic extension. But I don't love it enough
for it to impede progress!
>
> Regarding extension: In trying to read through all this material I don't
see a lot of love for "lacks" constraints a la TRex.
> Cheers,
> -Ryan
H
Ryan Newton gmail.com> writes:
>
> I admit I'm a big fan of polymorphic extension. But I
don't love it enough
for it to impede progress!
>
> Regarding extension: In trying to read through all this
material I don't
see a lot of love for "lacks" constraints a la TRex.
> Cheers,
> -Ryan
Ryan Newton gmail.com> writes:
> I admit I'm a big fan of polymorphic extension. But I don't love it enough
for it to impede progress!
>
> Regarding extension: In trying to read through all this material I don't
see a lot of love for "lacks" constraints a la TRex.
> Cheers,
> -Ryan
>
Ryan Newton gmail.com> writes:
>
> I admit I'm a big fan of polymorphic extension. But I don't love it enough
for it to impede progress!
>
> Regarding extension: In trying to read through all this material I don't
see a lot of love for "lacks" constraints a la TRex.
> Cheers,
> -Ryan
Ryan Newton gmail.com> writes:
>
> I admit I'm a big fan of polymorphic extension. But I don't love it enough
for it to impede progress!
>
> Regarding extension: In trying to read through all this material I don't
see a lot of love for "lacks" constraints a la TRex.
> Cheers,
> -Ryan
> I've been toying with building my own ld replacement. I don't know
> anything about linkers, but I'd say at least even odds that I can do
> better than this.
I'm guessing linkers are hard, but gold proves that if you keep the
scope small and use modern techniques you can get really good
improve
> I'm slightly surprised by this - in my experience parallel builds beat
> --make as long as the parallelism is a factor of 2 or more. Is your
> dependency graph very narrow, or do you have lots of very small modules?
I get full parallelism, 4 threads at once on a 2 core machine * 2
hyperthread/w
Thijs Alkemade gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry to be slow, but I still don't understand what you intend.
Hi Thijs, like Simon, I'm struggling to see the point. You said earlier:
> The intended users are peop
| The primary goal is to make this part of GHCi. Say, you're working on
| a file Foo.hs in your favorite editor, and you have:
Aha. That is helpful (below). Start a GHC wiki page to describe?
Now, if I compile
{-# LANGUAGE ImplicitParams #-}
module Foo where
foo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to be slow, but I still don't understand what you intend. I wonder
> whether you could give a series of examples? Is this something to do with
> GHCi? Or some hypothetical IDE? Or do you expect to compile Foo.hs with som
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | > Let me try to describe the goal better. The intended users are people
> | > new to Haskell or people working with existing code they are not
> | > familiar with.
> |
> | Also me. I want this feature.
>
> My question remains: what
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 14:36, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | > Let me try to describe the goal better. The intended users are people
> | > new to Haskell or people working with existing code they are not
> | > familiar with.
> |
> | Also me. I want this feature.
>
> My question remains: what i
| > Let me try to describe the goal better. The intended users are people
| > new to Haskell or people working with existing code they are not
| > familiar with.
|
| Also me. I want this feature.
My question remains: what is the feature? Agda has a sophisticated IDE; is
that a key part o
| This is where you would want to use a hole. Just like undefined, it
| has type `a`, so it can be used anywhere (and when compiling, we
| intend to turn it into an exception too), but the difference with
| undefined is that after the typechecking has succeeded, you get a list
| of your holes,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Thijs Alkemade
wrote:
> Let me try to describe the goal better. The intended users are people
> new to Haskell or people working with existing code they are not
> familiar with.
Also me. I want this feature. It pretty much single handedly makes
prototyping things
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
>
> ...
>
> To me it looks like you get exactly the info that (I think) you want, and
> moreover you can do that without changing the type inference engine at all.
>
> Simon
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
>
On 25/01/12 16:21, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
Hello!
...
Examples:
*Main> :t [__, ()]
tcRnExpr2: [(:1:2-3, ())]
[__, ()] :: [()]
*Main> :t map __ __
tcRnExpr2: [(:1:5-6, a0 -> b), (:1:8-9, [a0])]
map __ __ :: [b]
You can do something similar right now with implicit parameters:
Prelude>
A thought. Based on my limited understanding of your goals, suppose instead of
(say)
f (__, True) __
you transformed to
\xy -> f (x,True) y
That is, replace each hole with a variable. Now do type inference. You'll get
a type like
Int -> Bool -> ...
and that tells
The starting point a new records implementation was to be pragmatic
and get something done. Simon has identified that Has constraints are
required to implement records.
However, in general, exposing an internal implementation to a user is
an idea that should give great pause. It makes it difficult
Thijs
You are describing the implementation of something, but you do not give a
specification. It's hard for me to help you with the design of something when
I don't know what the goal is.
Can you give a series of concrete examples of what you want to happen? Is this
just in GHCi? Or do you
> From: Evan Laforge
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:
>>> package list for me. ?The time is going to be dominated by linking,
>>> which is single threaded anyway, so either way works.
>>
>> What is the state of incremental linkers? ?I thought those existed now.
>
> I think
On 24/01/2012 03:53, Evan Laforge wrote:
> I recently switched from ghc --make to a parallelized build system. I
> was looking forward to faster builds, and while they are much faster
> at figuring out what has to be rebuilt (which is most of the time for
> a small rebuild, since ld dominates), c
On 25/01/2012 07:16, Andres Löh wrote:
You seem to assume that old strategies use a different GC policy than
new strategies. My understanding is that this is not true. The WEAK
policy is used in general now. So old strategies shouldn't be used
with more recent GHCs, or you'll lose parallelism.
28 matches
Mail list logo
