Line 114 of Window.hi says:
1 zdfHasTextWindow :: __forall [v] {GUIValue.GUIValue v, GUIState.GUIObject
Window} = {GUIBaseClasses.HasText Window v} ;
ghc --version says
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 4.03, patchlevel 0
I downloaded it around 18th May from the
I think it's a bug when a compiler doesn't
understand an intermediate file it generated a
few minutes before. According to GHC:
It's a bug all right. I've just fixed it. In principle there
is absolutely nothing wrong with types like
zdfHasTextWindow :: __forall [v]
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 02:08:19PM +0100, I wrote:
However, it may have been a miscompiled glibc (this is the
libc6-2.1.1-7 Debian build), more news tomorrow when I find the
relevant mail messages.
It still does not work with the 2.1.1-9 build, so it may have been
something introduced since
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:18:34AM +0100, Giuliano P Procida wrote:
I will try to hack hsc with a binary editor to remove the fflush
call and see what happens.
OK, one hacked hsc and a couple more hours of compilation later and
I've run into another problem (compiling
On 25-May-1999, Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Maeder wrote:
| An abstract data type should not reveal its realization.
Indeed! And therefore, an abstract datatype should not impose silly
restrictions on the context where they are not needed. How I implement a
set (for
I have a question for the Haskell experts on the list. (Especially
Haskell compiler writers).
Is it possible to have a kind more complicated than:
kind = kind' | kind' - kind
kind' = * | ( kind'' )
kind'' = * | * - kind''
If so could you give me an example of a type which has a more
Kevin Atkinson wrote on Wed, 26 May 1999 03:05:17 -0400:
I have a question for the Haskell experts on the list. (Especially
Haskell compiler writers).
Is it possible to have a kind more complicated than:
kind = kind' | kind' - kind'
I made a mistake here. Please don't post this
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I have a question for the Haskell experts on the list. (Especially
Haskell compiler writers).
Is it possible to have a kind more complicated than:
kind = kind' | kind' - kind
kind' = * | ( kind'' )
kind'' = * | * - kind''
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Your grammar does not seem to cover
((*-*) - *) - *
which you could get (as the kind of D) e.g. from
data D c = C (c [])
Now how would I use a type considering its constructor has a signature
of:
C :: a [] - D a
I answered my
George Russell wrote:
| I think the whole idea of making strings lists of characters is
| barmy, and one of the few things which are a big disadvantage of
| Haskell over ML. The consequence is that one must take a huge
| performance hit on any portable code that deals with text a lot (as
|
I have a question for the Haskell experts on the list. (Especially
Haskell compiler writers).
Is it possible to have a kind more complicated than:
kind = kind' | kind' - kind'
kind' = * | ( kind'' )
kind'' = * | * - kind''
If so could you give me an example of a type which has a more
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Your grammar does not seem to cover
((*-*) - *) - *
which you could get (as the kind of D) e.g. from
data D c = C (c [])
Now how would I use a type considering its constructor has a signature
of:
Now how would I use a type considering its constructor has a signature
of:
C :: a [] - D a
data L1 f = C1 (f Int)
x :: D L1
x = C (C1 [])
-- Lennart
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
But what can such a type be used for?
This particular example is not very useful, but there are examples where
higher kinds are used. Chris Okasaki have some for representing square
matrices.
Here's a simpler example. Consider the type of non-empty, multiway
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I have a question for the Haskell experts on the list. (Especially
Haskell compiler writers).
Is it possible to have a kind more complicated than:
kind = kind' | kind' - kind
kind' = * | ( kind'' )
kind'' = * | * - kind''
Yes, kinds are generated by the grammar
15 matches
Mail list logo
