Hi,
I just recently starting to use the ghc compiler and am astonished by the
size of the executables. Out of interest, why are they so large? Is there
any work in progress to make the resulting executable/object somewhat more
normal in size?
I read in the Haskell mailing list archives
if you are using GNU tools there is some magic to make them
garbage-collect all the symbols in your executable before outputting the
final code. you have to do some tricks with the segment headers so that
it can GC individual functions but this should fix many of the image
size problems at least
|Probably, the best specification would be
|
| gcd n m :: Integer = if n == 0 m == 0 then 0
| else
| greatest integer that divides both n and m
Well, thank you all those that have contributed. My original point
was simply to say
Simon Peyton Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: If someone could write a sentence or two to explain why gcd 0 0 = 0,
: (ideally, brief ones I can put in the report by way of explanation),
: I think that might help those of us who have not followed the details
: of the discussion.
Division in
Recently I've hacked up a (yet another) TeX package for typesetting
literate scripts in TeX
Cool! I will use it in my thesis.
One bug: a line can be broken between an inline code and a comma
which immediately follows it.
--
__( Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all
I am rather confused about default.
In section 4.3.4 the report says
each ti must be a monotype for which Num ti holds
but according to grep this is the only place monotype appears in the
report.
If I have the module
module TT (Foo(..)) where
default (Foo, [Foo], Foo -
Well, I've been doing some more stupid thinking, and I've decided that I
am not satisfied with the module system in haskell, or the way it deals
with namespaces. It seems to me that there are four kinds of things
that need to be dealt with: classes, instances, types, values, and
possibly some
