On 11 February 2012 00:30, John Meacham wrote:
> Would it be useful to make 'Proxy' an unboxed type itself? so
>
> Proxy :: forall k . k -> #
>
> This would statically ensure that no one accidentally passes ⊥ as a parameter
> or will get anything other than the unit 'Proxy' when trying to evaluate
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:30:02PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
>
> something I have thought about is perhaps a special syntax for Proxy, like
> {:: Int -> Int } is short for (Proxy :: Proxy (Int -> Int)). not sure whether
> that is useful enough in practice though, but could be handy if we are
> t
Would it be useful to make 'Proxy' an unboxed type itself? so
Proxy :: forall k . k -> #
This would statically ensure that no one accidentally passes ⊥ as a parameter
or will get anything other than the unit 'Proxy' when trying to evaluate it.
So the compiler can unconditionally elide the paramet
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:03:42PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> The page describes an improved implementation of the Typeable class, making
> use of polymorphic kinds. Technically it is straightforward, but it
> represents a non-backward-compatible change to a widely used library, so we
Sorry, I got caught up doing a few other things the past few days.
I'll make a binary of the 7.4.1 release later today and upload it to
my code.haskell.org account and report back here (the uploading will
take as long as the build, due to bad internet right now...)
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:56 P
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
> I've done so, and have an RC2 bindist that doesn't have a segfaulting
> GHCi. I suppose this build should be advocated to Snow Leopard users.
>
> I currently need a place to put the bindist. I'm about to send an
> email to community.haskell.or
| Where is Proxy data type defined?
In the section "The new Typeable class" of
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcKinds/PolyTypeable
| Which instances should it have?
Well, Typeable, perhaps! But that is no so relevant here.
S
___
Glasg
On 10.02.2012 20:03, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Friends
The page describes an improved implementation of the Typeable class, making use
of polymorphic kinds. Technically it is straightforward, but it represents a
non-backward-compatible change to a widely used library, so we need to make a
pla
Hello,
You are receiving this mail because you are the reporter, or on the CC
list, for one or more GHC tickets that are automatically having their
priority reduced due to our post-release ticket handling policy:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions/BugTracker#Remilest
Friends
The page describes an improved implementation of the Typeable class, making use
of polymorphic kinds. Technically it is straightforward, but it represents a
non-backward-compatible change to a widely used library, so we need to make a
plan for the transition.
http://hackage.ha
Fixed, thank you.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
| users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Christian Maeder
| Sent: 07 February 2012 11:33
| To: GHC Users Mailing List
| Subject: auto-orphans?
|
| Hi,
|
| in
| http:/
Hi Alkenade,
This is the way I do all of my Haskell programming, without any need for
language support. I never use undefined for anything else -- or head, any
other partial functions or partial case expressions. It may be because of
wiring or habituation, but I have assumed that this is the way f
Hello all,
We've started a wiki-page discussing how this idea can be applied to GHC here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Holes
There have already been a number of people who indicated they'd want
to use this, so feel free to use the page to leave your comments about
how you'd want to u
| 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.
I think it'd be overstating it to say "required". But Has constraints do seem
to be a modest way to make progress that fi
It should not have worked before. Consider
I# $ 3#
($) is a polymorphic function and takes two *pointer* arguments. If we
actually called it with I# and 3# as arguments we might seg-fault when we call
the GC when allocating the box.
Polymorphic type variables (in this case in th
> I like the idea! And it should be possible to build this without modifying
> GHC at all, on top of the GHC API. As you say, you'll need a server
> process, which accepts command lines, executes them, and sends back the
> results. A local socket should be fine (and will work on both Unix and
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
