The same thing happened to me when I tried to test Dynamic.lhs distributed
with Hugs98. The library module seems to have been imported from the GHC
distribution, so it worked only after moving the sub-expressions to the
top level.
Dynamic.lhs distributed with GHC and Hugs98 utilizes
I think this should be written in big red letters in
the installation instructions at
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~sof/ghc-win32.html
This page is rather out of date, which is why it's not linked to any
more. The installation instructions are in the user manual, and directly
linked to from
At the moment I think it is only possible that
error messages about functions can refer to line
numbers and names of source files at the points
of *definition* of these functions. These error
messages are the ones that ghc automatically
generates when there is a pattern matching error.
At 4:09 pm + 8/8/00, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:17:15 +0200, Erik Meijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
You hit the nail right on the head wrt to Haskell and .NET. This is
precisely why I am working on Mondrian, which also goes under the name
Haskell#, a pure, lazy
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:53:42 -0400 you wrote:
Armin,
Is HDoc also designed to work with the February 2000 version of Hugs98?
Will it work under Linux and MacOS as well as under Win 32 (including Windows 2000)?
--Benjamin L. Russell
HDoc should run on any version of Hugs98 as it
I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords
coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not
in the know. Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships
between
.NET
NGWS
C# (which I've discovered is intended to be
At 11:01 am -0230 9/8/00, Theodore Norvell wrote:
I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords
coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not
in the know. Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships
between
.NET
The name for a whole
Nigel Perry wrote:
NGWS
An older temporary name for .NET. NGWS? Never Goes Wonderfully Sucks?
I think somebody shot the marketing guy and replaced him, she then
came up with ".NET" :-)
Next Generation Windows Services (I think), as opposed to older generations
such as the Win32 APIs and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) writes:
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:17:15 +0200, Erik Meijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Haskell#
This is what worries me: modifying a bunch of languages to make them
incompatible with the rest of the world
How did they say on segfault.org:
Microsoft
[a while ago]
From: Tom Pledger
Claus Reinke writes:
- one would think that () simply takes its role as a unit, so that
(),a == a == a,()
but if we know x::() does that imply that x,a == a ?
x could be bottom, and the equations for the unit look strict in
their unit
[discussion of benefits and otherwise of .NET, C#, ..]
They have definitely managed to attract some attention, haven't they?-)
If we put language and other wars aside for the moment, there are a few
questions that haven't come up yet, the answers to which would interest
me (and seem relevant
Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:27:14 +0100, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
In the language I had in mind, I would expect to be able to "retrieve" the
() from any product, at any position
I still prefer the list-like non-associative treatment of tuples.
It needs not type system extensions.
The
Does anybody know of work using monads to encapsulate a source of
random numbers? A quick web search suggested Haskell 98 did not take
this path. I'd be curious for any insights why, or any suggestions
about a `randomness monad'.
Norman
Norman Ramsey writes:
Does anybody know of work using monads to encapsulate a source of
random numbers? A quick web search suggested Haskell 98 did not take
this path. I'd be curious for any insights why, or any suggestions
about a `randomness monad'.
Norman
Hi.
Is the global
Does anybody know of work using monads to encapsulate a source of
random numbers?
Is the global random number generator, in section 17.3 of the Haskell
98 library report, the sort of thing you're after?
No; that appears to embed a generator in the IO monad.
Not what I'd hoped
Norman Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anybody know of work using monads to encapsulate a source of
random numbers? A quick web search suggested Haskell 98 did not take
this path. I'd be curious for any insights why, or any suggestions
about a `randomness monad'.
My guess as to why
Theodore Norvell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords
coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not
in the know.
That's part of the masterplan ;-)
Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships
between
On 09-Aug-2000, Brent Fulgham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prepare for rant
Hopefully that won't be the case. However, I feel uncomfortable with
the whole .NET/C# situation. Like clockwork, MS releases yet another
new product that they claim will change the world. Meanwhile, there is
no C#
18 matches
Mail list logo
