Binary methods

Is it possible to set up classes that express the following (using ghc extensions)? There are various kinds of geometrical shapes. They can be packed inside an existentially qualified datatype. Values of that existential need to be compared for equality: the comparison of figures of different

redirecting .hi

I asked earlier how to replace in Makefile many lines of kind source/Categs_flags = -ohi $(E)/Categs.hi source/auxil/Set__flags = -ohi $(E)/Set_.hi ... (processed by the $($*_flags) compilation key) with something short. Thanks to Marc Van Dongen, Simon Marlow, Sigbjorn Finne

RE: I thought concurrent haskell was _preemptive_!

You are right that we promised this a while ago, and have not delivered. I'm sorry about that. I, for one, had not appreciated how important it was to you. We are planning to release 4.04 this week, but this thread stuff just won't make it in. We'll do it right after the release, modulo

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler, version 4.04

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

Re: Again: Referential Equality

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 transparent.

RE: The dreaded layout rule

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 particular,

The dreaded layout rule

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

Re: The dreaded layout rule

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!!)

RE: The dreaded layout rule

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 particular,

Re: The dreaded layout rule

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

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler, version 4.04

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] Sent: