On 28-Jul-1999, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > equal x y = unsafePerformIO $ do
> > ptrEq <- ptrEqual x y
> > return (ptrEq || deep_equals x y)
> >
> > Note that unlike `req', `equal' here _is_ referentially tr
On 28-Jul-1999, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > ... This is OK in Mercury because in Mercury
> > although the operational semantics is required to be sound w.r.t. the
> > declarative semantics, it is not required to be complete; in cases
> > where the d
Manuel Chakravarty writes:
> What kind of implementation did the originators of this
> clause envision? If the layout rule is really implemented
> as a filter between the scanner and the parser, it seems
> extremely awkward to add a dependency on the error condition
> of the parser - in particu
One of our students just pointed out an IMHO rather
problematic clause in the layout rule. In Section 2.7 of
the Haskell 98 Report it says,
A close brace is also inserted whenever the syntactic
category containing the layout list ends; that is, if an
illegal lexeme is encountered at a poin
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--F93F7E72348E2F23CC7D1D40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Manuel says
> One of our students just pointed out an IMHO rather problematic clause in the >
>layout rule ... So, I guess (I hope!!) th
Manuel Chakravarty writes:
> What kind of implementation did the originators of this
> clause envision? If the layout rule is really implemented
> as a filter between the scanner and the parser, it seems
> extremely awkward to add a dependency on the error condition
> of the parser - in particu
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of our students just pointed out an IMHO rather
> problematic clause in the layout rule. In Section 2.7 of
> the Haskell 98 Report it says,
>
> A close brace is also inserted whenever the syntactic
> category containing the layout
"Carl R. Witty" wrote:
> Does anybody disagree with my interpretation of the standard? Are
> there any implementations that actually follow the standard here?
> (Maybe the standard should be changed to follow the implementations in
> this area.)
I think you're absolutely right. And I can't ima
If the scanning stage pairs the tokens it returns with
their positions, then scanning can be done once before
parsing begins. I've done this with a parser implemented
with parser combinators, these combinators then decide
whether or not to accept a token based on which token
it is and how far it
Now that you're an (ahem) Microsoft employee, is there any intention of
allowing ghc to use Visual C++ instead of gcc, or supporting the Win32
platform without cygwin?
Thanks,
Craig
- Original Message -
From: Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 4.04
==
We are pleased to announce a new release of the Glasgow Haskell
Compiler (GHC), version 4.04. The source distribution and various binary
distributions are freely available via the
11 matches
Mail list logo