Dear Haskell Folks,
Release Candidate 12 of the H98 FFI Addendum 1.0 is now
available from
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/haskell/ffi/
Since the release of RC 11 (12 June), there was only one
small change (which was already under discussion before RC
11 was published). Hence, I consider Ver
Throughout this message you imply, if not outright state, that Dynamics
requires unsafeCoerce/unsafePerformIO. This is simply not the case.
GHC implements Dynamics with unsafeCoerce, or did last time I checked,
but it can easily be implemented using only existentials. (I presume
that this decisio
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> module System.TextIOFirstDraft (...) where
>
> -- A BlockRecoder takes source and destination buffers and does some sort
> -- of translation between them. It returns the number of values (not
> -- bytes!) consumed and the number of values produced. It does not have to
>
This message describes functions safeCast and sAFECoerce implemented
in Haskell98 with common, pure extensions. The functions can be used
to 'escape' from or to existential quantification and to make
existentially-quantified datatypes far easier to deal with. Unlike
Dynamic, the present approach i
presumably if you are doing random access on the file, it is in a known
nonarbitrary text encoding (like utf8). in which case you can
read/access the file with the binary routines and just use the
appropriate text conversions to get data out.
John
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:55:44PM -0700,
Hi Ben,
> Bad things:
>
> * There's no way to implement fgetpos/fsetpos type functionality,
> because coders don't expose their internal state. (In fact, there
> would need to be a way to explicitly copy the state, since it may
> well include IORefs, Ptrs, etc.) Is this a serious pr
[Crossposted to Haskell and Libraries. Replies to Libraries.]
{-
Good things about this text library design:
* Efficient implementation should be straightforward
* Character coder interface is public, so users can supply their own
encodings, or write coder transformers (there are some in
> This looks like a bizarre rendition of the Error/Exception monad.
Yes, of course. *Hal slaps himself*
Thanks.
> Also, your motivating example is ambiguous. I think you mainly care
> about the case where the test is testing for some "exceptional"
> condition. I personally wouldn't want to us
[Crossposted to Haskell and Libraries. Replies to Libraries.]
-- More comments, please. Bad names? Important missing functionality?
-- Still unimplementable?
module System.RawIOSecondDraft (...) where
data File -- now essentially a file handle
data InputChannel -- renamed f
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:18:40 -0700
"Hal Daume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so, my questions are: does this exist in some other form I'm not aware
> of? is there something fundamentally broken about this (sorry for the
> pun)? any other comments, suggestions?
This looks like a bizarre rendition
i've noticed in a lot of my imperative-looking monadic code, i have lots
of stuff that looks like:
> ... = do
> q <- some test
> if q
> then return some constant
> else do
> major code body here
lots of these things embedded makes the code hard to read and introduces
way too muc
=
The (Interactive) Glasgow Haskell Compiler -- version 6.0.1
=
A Mac OS X package id now available at:
http://www.uni-graz.at/imawww/haskell/GHC.6.0.1.dmg
Cheers,
W
I seldom post things here, but Fritz, you are a genius!
/David
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
John Peterson recently handed over control of the Haskell Merchandise
area of haskell.org to me and, in celebration, I've created a bunch of
provisional designs for new Haskell, FP and types-related "swag".
The logos include the original and new haskell.org logos and about
15 others, designed aro
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I don't know why the all in one version might go
| slower though.
How about some (artificial) cut-offs during optimization
phases? Optimizing a hugs module could lead to some kind of
combinatorial explosion (which gets cut off by the
optimizer) which does not happen
At 08:44 31/07/03 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I don't know why the all in one version might go slower though
Virtual memory thrashing? (Hal did say something about needing lots of RAM.)
#g
---
Graham Klyne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBC
Something very odd is going on. GHC does not generate programs than run
3x faster between GHC versions.
If, perhaps, you compiled both without -O, no cross-module inlining
takes place. That would account for a big slow down when using separate
compilation. I see you use -O2 this time.
I don'
17 matches
Mail list logo
