On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 19:16:48 +0100, Alex Ferguson wrote:
My next worry is that when I try to build ghc from source on an Alpha,
I'll get bitten on the bum by the ghc-needs-Happy-needs-(recent)-ghc
syndrome, or otherwise spend mucho time wrestling with the Happy
build setup to get round
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 02:10:16 +0100, Alex Ferguson wrote:
In order to install ghc-4.04, I need to install the binary v. of 2.10
(this should be OK for doing that, right?)
Last time I checked (some months ago), GHC 4.x wasn't in a shape that it
could be build at all on Alpha architecture! I
In order to install ghc-4.04, I need to install the binary v. of 2.10
(this should be OK for doing that, right?) Immediately I come a cropper,
thus:
wisdom.ucc.ie:~/ghc210/fptools: gnumake in-place
gnumake config-pkgs bindir=`pwd`/bin/alpha-dec-osf1/ghc-2.10
libdir=`pwd`/lib/alpha-dec-osf1
If you look on the GHC download page for version 2.10 you will see
that there is a patch for the Makefile there. I think this is your
problem.
It would be great if you can get version 4 running on Alpha, but I
suspect that your problems are only just beginning ;-)
regards
Kevin
Alex
I wrote:
syntax error at ../../ghc/driver/ghc line 1855, near "sub runLinker("
Execution of ../../ghc/driver/ghc aborted due to compilation errors.
gnumake: *** [Adjustor.o] Error 255
Evidently Perl versionitis. 5.001 no like; 5.005 likum plenty fine.
(This seems familiar, but I didn't
"S. Alexander Jacobson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
The Haskell report says that, by convention, only _HASKELL_ files have a
.hs or .lhs extension.
--http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/literate.html--
By convention, the style of comment is indicated by the file extension,
On Mon 27 Sep, Havoc Pennington wrote:
I'm trying to learn Haskell, and I'm wondering what experiences people
have with designing programs with graphical user interfaces.
Adrian Hey wrote:
I have none, but I think you need concurrency to do it properly,
Cardelli Pike claim otherwise
I found this bold statement from their top page amusing:
If you want to build robust, scalable, complex _and yet exciting_
software
then you need to use pure object-oriented programming techniques.
[emphasis mine]
Personally, I am a strong advocate of dynamic, rather than
