On 24 October 2005 21:45, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On 10/24/05, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here is the patch.
>
> Again, with a small bugfix in docs.
Thanks; now committed.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing lis
On 10/24/05, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the patch.
Again, with a small bugfix in docs.
Best regards
Tomasz
patch
Description: Binary data
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.has
On 10/14/05, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/05, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > HEAD definitely. We don't change the specification of STABLE, only fix
> > bugs.
>
> Great, I have the initial implementation, but I'll try to make it
> prettier.
Here is the
On 13 October 2005 18:57, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On 10/11/05, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
>>
>> I will try to do this
>
> On which branch of GHC should I b
On 10/11/05, Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
>
> I will try to do this
On which branch of GHC should I be working?
There are some differences between HEAD and STABL
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:52:13PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> There's no really deep reason for this choice, other than it being what
> GHC does normally - i.e. the default binary has always been a.out
> (main.exe on Windows) unless -o is given.
>
> I don't see enough of a compelling reason to c
On 10/11/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, let's close this bikeshed. Someone want to send us a patch?
I will try to do this, but I don't have a working PC at home at the moment.
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On 11 October 2005 11:04, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> I'd tend to agree.
>
> It'd mean one less magic incantation to tell students when teaching
> practicals (and one less thing for them to get wrong) if they can do:
>
> ghc --make Main.hs
>
> rather than
>
> ghc --make Main.hs -o Main
>
> (that's
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 10:45 +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2005-10-11 at 09:49BST "Simon Marlow" wrote:
> > On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> > > It wasn't meant to be a bug report, only a feature request ;-)
> > >
> > > Actually, I was mostly interested if anyone would mind if
On 2005-10-11 at 09:49BST "Simon Marlow" wrote:
> On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> > It wasn't meant to be a bug report, only a feature request ;-)
> >
> > Actually, I was mostly interested if anyone would mind if GHC
> > chose the name based on the top-level module.
> >
> > Wou
On 11 October 2005 10:04, Christian Maeder wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> You can always use Cabal, BTW :)
>
> ghc should supply it, too.
GHC does come with Cabal. ?
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@
On 11 October 2005 09:58, Ketil Malde wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed
>> if there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
>> overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in favour,
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
[..]
Would you accept the patch?
I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed if
there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in fa
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm slightly inclined not to make this change, but I could be swayed if
> there was enough interest in it. What I'm seeing so far is not
> overwhelming support for the change. Simon PJ is in favour, though.
"a.out" is tradition, of course, but OTOH,
On 11 October 2005 06:29, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On 10/10/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's no really deep reason for this choice, other than it being
>> what GHC does normally - i.e. the default binary has always been
>> a.out (main.exe on Windows) unless -o is given.
>>
>
On 10/10/05, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
> > [...]
>
> > Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
> > *the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
> > files, then surely choo
On 10/10/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:40:21AM +0200,
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 28 lines which said:
>
> > Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
>
> Or better, a rule in the Makefile, with suffixes:
>
>
On 10/10/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no really deep reason for this choice, other than it being what
> GHC does normally - i.e. the default binary has always been a.out
> (main.exe on Windows) unless -o is given.
>
> I don't see enough of a compelling reason to change it,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:40:21AM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
Or better, a rule in the Makefile, with suffixes:
%: %.hs
ghc --make -o $@ $^
So, you just have to type "make Long
On 10 October 2005 14:12, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
>> [...]
>
>> Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
>> *the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
>> files, then surely choosing the
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 11:55 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
> [...]
> Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
> *the* solution. If there is no real reason for ghc to spit out a.out
> files, then surely choosing the exe name from the main input file
> would simplify a progra
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
When I work on a program which is going to be named LongProgramName,
I usually put the Main module in file LongProgramName.hs. It would be nice
if I could build it with --make like this:
$ ghc --make LongProgramName
instead of
$ ghc --make LongProgramName -o LongProgra
> Why don't you use a small shell script for this?
These kinds of answers are all too abundant, no offense meant. :-)
There are lots of things that *can* be done already, that doesn't mean
that we can't improve them!
Using a shell script is a possible work-around, but certainly not
*the* solution
Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 08:38 schrieb Tomasz Zielonka:
> On 10/10/05, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once
> > > lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the
On 10/10/05, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once> lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the end of line:
> $ ghc --make Prog -o Prog.hsIf you want, I can tell you abou
Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because of this long syntax and comand-line completion I've even once
> lost the source code. I forgot to remove the .hs at the end of line:
> $ ghc --make Prog -o Prog.hs
If you want, I can tell you about this great version control system
I'm using :
26 matches
Mail list logo
