On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically, consider:
case Nothing of
!(~(Just x)) - 5
Nothing - 12
Now, the way I'd expect this to work, and how I think the spec says it
works, is that my Nothing is evaluated, and then the irrefutable
Filed. Bug #8952.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, wren romano winterkonin...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically, consider:
case Nothing of
!(~(Just x)) - 5
Nothing - 12
Now, the way I'd expect this to
| | Also, is there a way to do something similar but for 'lazy' rather than
| | 'seq'? I want something of type
| |
| | type World__ = State# RealWorld
| |
| | {-# NOINLINE newWorld__ #-}
| | newWorld__ :: a - World__
| | newWorld__ x = realWord# -- ???
| |
| | except that I need
On 12/3/06, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:02:28PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
[snip]
| Also, is there a way to do something similar but for 'lazy' rather than
| 'seq'? I want something of type
|
| type World__ = State# RealWorld
|
| {-# NOINLINE
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:02:28PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I was recently presented with the problem of writing a function like so
|
| seqInt__ :: forall a . a - Int# - Int#
| seqInt__ x y = x `seq` y
|
| which seems fine, except 'seq' of type forall a b . a - b - b cannot
| be
| I was recently presented with the problem of writing a function like so
|
| seqInt__ :: forall a . a - Int# - Int#
| seqInt__ x y = x `seq` y
|
| which seems fine, except 'seq' of type forall a b . a - b - b cannot
| be applied to an unboxed value.
Actually it works fine. Did you try it? Seq
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:13:13PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
I was recently presented with the problem of writing a function like so
seqInt__ :: forall a . a - Int# - Int#
seqInt__ x y = x `seq` y
which seems fine, except 'seq' of type forall a b . a - b - b cannot
be applied to an
| After reading the paper Pattern Guards and Transformational Patterns
| by Martin Erwig and Simon Peyton Jones, I'm left wondering about the
| status of transformational patterns? Can we expect to see these at
| some point in GHC? Or have they gone by the wayside in favor of some
| other
Sensible suggestion
No technical problem, just one more thing to do.
If anyone feels inclined to implement it I'll gladly incorporate
the fruits of their labours in the GHC code base.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: George Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 04 December 2000
Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:17:42 +0100, George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Where you have variables in the patterns, you bind only the
variables which appear in all the patterns, and you unify the
types accordingly.
Or bind them all (otherwise there would be _ written) and get bottom
in case
10 matches
Mail list logo
