Re: problems with FFI including h files

2002-06-10 Thread Carl R. Witty
Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I thought we established that generating valid C prototypes from the > > Haskell FFI type signature wasn't possible due to the incompleteness > > of the Haskell type (lack of 'const' modifiers for one thing - is > > there anything else?). > > Compile

Re: GHC Poll: scope in GHCi

2002-01-09 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, so in general a 'scope' can be constructed by combining: > >1. the full top-level scope from zero or more *interpreted* modules >2. the exports of zero or more modules (interpreted or compiled) >3. any temporary bindings made on the co

Re: ghc --make feature request

2001-10-29 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've seen unexpected compiles using ghc --make. I've got a system > > with modules A, B, and C; A depends on B and B depends on C. I've > > seen the following sequence of events: > > > > I change C > > ghc --make A compiles C, B, and A > > I chang

Re: ghc --make feature request

2001-10-26 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GHC actually has rather sophisticated recompilation checking which > goes beyond just checking whether the interface changed - it keeps > version information for each entity exported by a module and only > recompiles if any of the entities actually use

Re: HOpengl on Ghc 5.02

2001-10-09 Thread Carl R. Witty
Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi there, > Sorry for this stupid question: > Is there a distrib of a HOpenGl package working with ghc 5.02. I tried > the CVS but don't manage to make it work (ghc 5.03 panic). > Can someone help me? I got HOpenGL to work without trouble. On September 29,

Re: unsafePtrCompare, anybody?

2001-09-17 Thread Carl R. Witty
Leon Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, in this situation, pointer comparison is simply an arbitrary total > order on the set of all atoms, which is all we need to implement finite maps > based on search trees. And of course, pointer comparisons are a much cheaper > operation that a

Re: GHC FFI Return Type Bug

2001-08-07 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Sigbjorn Finne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Julian Seward (Intl Vendor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Hmm, we're looking at this. However, I don't really know what > > C is or is not supposed to do here. Given > > > > char fooble ( ... ) > > { > >return 'z'; > > } > > > > on a

Re: Endangered I/O operations

2001-05-23 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You obtain the ordering properties by setting the handle to NoBuffering, > otherwise you get buffered input/output. Wouldn't it be deviating from > the report to do extra flushing in the buffered case? (this is > something of a technicality, actually

Re: Happy and Macros (was Re: ANNOUNCE: Happy 1.10 released)

2001-05-14 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I didn't say that this works for any kind of parser > combinator, I merely said that it works Doitse's and mine. > Both implement SLL(1) parsers for which - as I am sure, you > know - there exists a decision procedure for testing > ambiguit

Re: Happy and Macros (was Re: ANNOUNCE: Happy 1.10 released)

2001-05-11 Thread Carl R. Witty
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At > least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator > library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you > parse a sentence involving the ambiguous productions. So, >

Re: Happy and Macros (was Re: ANNOUNCE: Happy 1.10 released)

2001-05-10 Thread Carl R. Witty
"S. Alexander Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I > have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing > allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work > in Hugs (where you

Re: `sort' implementation

1999-02-15 Thread Carl R. Witty
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The merge sorting costs O( n*log(n) ), so it is good in any case. > > Why not implement it? > > GHC's sort implementation is a well-optimised quicksort plundered originally > from the hbc library I believe. In your example above you mention testing