Hi,
Just checking my understanding here as I have not followed this thread
in all its details.
Gabor Lehel wrote:
> I agree completely. This is what I like about DORF: the D stands for
> "Declared", which is referring to the fact that the contracts are
> explicit. Record fields aren't automatic
2012/2/25 Gábor Lehel :
> Please correct me if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized any aspect of
> DORF.
Okay, I did end up misunderstanding and mischaracterizing at least two
aspects of DORF.
Re-reading the wiki page:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DeclaredOverloadedRecord
After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
Here is an example:
You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other
things) a field called "name". There might be several different record types
with a name field, depending on whether the rec
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Barney Hilken wrote:
> After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
> Here is an example:
>
> You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other
> things) a field called "name". There might be several differe
Hi!
I'm trying to understand the interaction between the -A and -H RTS
flags. The documentation at
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.4.1/html/users_guide/runtime-control.html
says that if you use -H (with or without an argument) it implicitly
implies some value of -A. However, it's not clear t
I wrote a program that uses a timed thread to collect data from a C
producer (using FFI). The number of threads in C producer are fixed (and
created at init). One haskell timer thread uses threadDelay to run itself
on timed interval. When I look at RTS output after killing the program
after couple
On further investigation, it seems to be very specific to Mac OS Lion (I am
running 10.7.3) - all tests were with -N3 option:
- I can reliably crash the code with seg fault or bus error if I create
more than 8 threads in C FFI (each thread creates its own mutex, for 1-1
coordination with Haskell t
On 02/25/2012 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
This seems to me a much simpler approach than building the mechanism in to the
language as DORF does, and it's also more general, because it isn't hard linked
to the module system. Does it have any disadvantages?
I can't tell offhand whether it has a
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
>>>
>>> This seems to me a much simpler approach than building the mechanism in
>>> to the language as DORF does, and it's also more general, because it isn't
>>> hard linked to the module system. Do
> My objection is that I'm not sure if there is ever a case where "you
> really want things to be polymorphic over all records".
Well, I don't have a simple, really convincing example, but there are certainly
things I want to play with.
More importantly, DORF automatically attaches one class to e
On 02/25/2012 05:10 PM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
Could you elaborate on this? (What's the way I don't want? What do you
mean by field-name-prefixes versus new-style overloading?) With DORF I
have control over which fields are polymorphic over which records,
very much like how I have control over which
On 2/25/12 11:51 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Perhaps it would make sense to document the actual algorithm used to
set -A given -H (with and without argument.)
+1. I've always been a bit hazy on how the two are related.
--
Live well,
~wren
___
Glasgow-ha
On 2/24/12 5:40 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
I share Greg's concerns about polymorphic projections. For example,
given a function
sort :: Ord a => ...
we don't allow any 'a' that happens to export a operator that's
spelled<= to be passed to 'sort'. We have the user explicitly create
an instanc
On 2/25/12 10:18 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Barney Hilken wrote:
After more pondering, I finally think I understand what the DORFistas want.
Here is an example:
You want to define records which describe people, and include (among other things) a field called
"nam
I have to take back what I said about the increase in worker tasks being
related to some Mac OS pthread bug. I can now reproduce the issue on Linux
(Redhat x86_64) too (and cause a segmentation fault once in a while). So,
now, it seems the issue might be due to either some kind of interaction
betwe
Whoa! suddenly a deluge over the DORF proposal.
I don't have time to reply fully now, but I must say: Barney
you have got it all wrong.
No, DORF does not attach one class to each label. There is
only one class 'Has', with methods get and set. Each record
decl generates an instance for the combina
Wren/all
Please remember SPJ's request on the Records wiki to stick
to the namespace issue. We're trying to make something
better that H98's name clash. We are not trying to build
some ideal polymorphic record system.
To take the field labelled "name": in H98 you have to
declare each record in a
17 matches
Mail list logo