Hi all,
I have the following problem on Windows NT using ghc 5.02 from a cygwin
bash-shell. Calls to System.system of the form
system $ grep -E ++ show str ++ ++ file ++ tmp
do not work because of the (ditto with ). Execution yields:
grep: : No such file or directory
Hugs works
I have the following problem on Windows NT using ghc 5.02 from a cygwin
bash-shell. Calls to System.system of the form
system $ grep -E ++ show str ++ ++ file ++ tmp
do not work because of the (ditto with ). Execution yields:
grep: : No such file or directory
This is because
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The upshot is that while GHC might notice that you have dropped a
Handle, another implementation which doesn't do black holing, stack
stubbing, strictness analysis, GC evaluation of selector thunks or
any of the other tricks we do to avoid space
In GHC 5.02 on Sun Solaris (binary package), running 'ghc-5.02 -c
-fglasgow-exts Test.hs' and Test.hs containing the following code:
module Test where
bimapGRose __ff __a = ((to ((bimapEP epGRose) epGRose))
((bimapGRose__ __ff) __a))
Gives the following panic message:
|
Can I just say thank you for the good error message. I'm sure I have used compilers
(not Haskell) which would tell you that you have a problem but leave you to find where
the two defintions are.
Dominic.
Encode.hs:8:
Ambiguous occurrence `Octet'
It could refer to either
How do I actually use ghc in Windows (98)? When I installed Hugs, my .hs
files got associated with Hugs and if I left-click on a .hs file I have
various options to run with.
We don't do this with GHC.
So do I open a DOS box and invoke ghc or ghci? If so how, what do I have
to change to get
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Simon Marlow wrote:
With large projects, ghc runs out of heapspace because of too much
caching.
I think it's more likely that GHC has some space leaks which cause it to
hang on to too much memory between compilations. In theory, it only
caches the contents of
Playing with GHC, I met some oddity.
Consider the example:
import IO
import Concurrent
import Posix
import PosixIO
main = do
(fdIn, fdIn_send) - createPipe
hIn_send - fdToHandle fdIn_send
hIn - fdToHandle fdIn
-- The waiter is a simple tk/tcl script
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 04:47:25PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I tried this here on Linux/x86 with 5.02 and it seems to work fine.
Instead of the tcl/tk script you mentioned I used a FIFO in /tmp/fifo
and made the runProcess just call cat /tmp/fifo.
Which GHC version and platform is this on?
Hello,
I've got a question regarding let-floating [1].
Consider the following two versions of the quicksort algorithm:
qsort1 l = f l []
where f [] = (\y - y)
f (x:xs) = let (xs_1,xs_2) = part (x) xs
in (\y - f xs_1 (x:(f xs_2 y)))
qsort2 l = f l
There are a couple things to do that can at least cut down on spam.
1) Make sure that your mail gateway, or (in this case) the mailing
list host is not an open relay site.
It isn't.
2) Every time you get spam, locate all the hosts it came through
in the header.
Or alternatively
| Is there a compiler (which version?) that optimizes qsort1 to
| (essentially) qsort2 ?
|
| Any hints concerning the possibility/impossibility of this
| would be helpful. Thanks and regards, Janis.
Alas, (still) not yet. As you say, the transformation depends
on spotting a one-shot lambda,
Fpr the Revised Haskell 98 report, Russell O'Connor suggests:
| Also, I understand you are reluctant to make library changes,
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
|
| sinh x = (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x = (exp(x) + exp(-x))/2
|
| (source: Calculus Third
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:25:40 -0400, Ken Shan [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
In Haskell's standard IO module, bracket_ is defined to have type
IO a - (a - IO b) - IO c - IO c
However, in the Exception module in hslibs, bracket_ has type
IO a - IO b - IO c - IO c
which IMHO is much
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Russell O'Connor suggests:
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
|
| sinh x = (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x = (exp(x) + exp(-x))/2
| I suggest removing sinh and cosh from the minimal complete
| definition, and add the above defaults.
This
2. So, they hold for the Complex numbers as well. The gymnastics with
complex sinh and cosh seems to be redundant.
Well, I would be a little careful changing these. Some of the definitions
in numerical part of the Prelude look more convoluted than they need to
be, but it's because they have
| sinh x = (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x = (exp(x) + exp(-x))/2
...
This looks pretty reasonable to me. We should have default methods
for anything we can.
Why not provide defaults for the inverse functions as well?
asinh x = log (x + sqrt (1+x*x))
acosh x = log (x + (x+1) * sqrt
- Original Message -
From: Jerzy Karczmarczuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Russell O'Connor suggests:
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
|
| sinh x = (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x = (exp(x) + exp(-x))/2
| I suggest removing sinh
| 1. Actually, I wouldn't even call that default
| definitions. These ARE
| definitions of sinh and cosh.
|
| Mathematically, yes. Numerically, no. Even if 'exp' is
| implemented with high accuracy, the suggested defaults may
| return a very inaccurate (in ulps) result. Take sinh near
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why not provide defaults for the inverse functions as well?
asinh x = log (x + sqrt (1+x*x))
acosh x = log (x + (x+1) * sqrt ((x-1)/(x+1)))
atanh x = log ((x+1) / sqrt (1 - x*x))
That's a good idea too.
Is there a reason for defining acosh as above instead of
acosh x = log(x + sqrt(x*x-1))
If there is one I can't remember it. :-)
-- Lennart
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CALL FOR PAPERS
RTA 2002
13th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications
July 22--24, Copenhagen, Denmark
Simon PJ wrote:
Fpr the Revised Haskell 98 report, Russell O'Connor suggests:
=20
| Also, I understand you are reluctant to make library changes,=20
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
|=20
| sinh x =3D (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x =3D (exp(x) +
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:27:52PM +0200, George Russell wrote:
Simon PJ wrote:
Fpr the Revised Haskell 98 report, Russell O'Connor suggests:
=20
| Also, I understand you are reluctant to make library changes,=20
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
Dylan Thurston wrote:
[snip]
No. As has been pointed out, this is a bad idea numerically because
it will give the wrong answer for sinh x for very small values of
x. As a matter of fact, you will also get the wrong answer for very large
values of x, where exp(x) can overflow even though
Dear Haskellers,
after the first rush of volunteers seems to have ebbed away, it is
probably time for a reminder. First, the good news:
We have just about enough topics covered to convince me that it makes
sense to go ahead. So the Haskell Communities page has moved to a more
permanent
Or alternatively just report it using Spamcop (http://spamcop.net) or
some other reporting tool. Life is just too short to do this by hand
every time you get spam.
CAUCE (The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) seems to me a
nice alternative. Check www.cauce.org.
On the Haskell
On 15-Oct-2001, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proposal is only to give default declarations
in the class defn for sinh, cosh, and perhaps as Lennart suggests
asinh, acosh, atanh. They give a reasonable first cut if you
don't write definitions yourself. But you can
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:52:06PM +0200, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Russell O'Connor suggests:
| but sinh and cosh can easily be defined in terms of exp
| sinh x = (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2
| cosh x = (exp(x) + exp(-x))/2
...
This looks pretty reasonable to me. We
In general, this is why LIA-2 (Language Independent Arithmetic, part
2, Elementary numerical functions, ISO/IEC 10967-2:2001) [. . .]
This sounds like a very interesting standard. I am constantly annoyed
by ISO's attempts to hide their standards; one might wonder what the
purpose is of
31 matches
Mail list logo
