Starting with a completely fresh tree indeed solved the problem. Finally I
was able to compile GHC from source, but I'd like to report that nofib and
hood are actually breaking the fptools build.
nofib error is:
/bin/sh -c ././exp3_8_p +RTS -SC:/TEMP/stats392 -RTS +RTS -H10m -K10m -RTS
8
Hi,
In July 2003, a discussion in this list named locating package.conf
(http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2003-July/005511.htm
l) concluded that make install on Windows is not supported. Has this
evolved since then?
Thanks,
-- Andre
Bugs item #904512, was opened at 2004-02-25 20:15
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonpj
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=904512group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: 6.0.1
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
There appears to be no instance for Double values in the
Generics.Basic
Also no instance for Ptr.
am I not importing the right file, or does this need to be fixed?
Regards,
Keean Schupke.
PS. This is with ghc-6.2
___
I've been frustrated by the same lack of instances; as a stopgap, here's
one for a three-tuple. The pattern is pretty clear and can easily be
extended to whatever size you'd like.
tupCon = mkConstr 1 (,,) Prefix
instance (Data a, Data b, Data c) = Data (a, b ,c) where
gfoldl k z (a, b, c) =
I have always wondered why the module system is not used at
all in these conventions. I mean, the function names seem to
come straight from the Haskell 1.2 days when there was no
module system!
I used the module system in this way in the first version of the HGL
| But in managing this tradeoff, what is faster:
| * constructing/destructing e.g. 16 trees (for a 65000 item table)
| * 2 memcpy of 256 item arrays (perhaps after you primop?)
|
| If the later is not dramatically slower than I
| will bias towards more arrayness.
I doubt the latter is
David Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| The idea that I've been throwing around is to be able to define a
| separate namespace for each type; a function can either belong in a
| global (default) namespace, or belong in a particular type's
| namespace. So, in the above example, instead
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 05:24:41PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
[Graham Klyne wrote:]
I recently ran into some problems porting some Haskell code
to Windows
because it used the Text.Regex library, which is dependent on
a Unix-only system.
Text.Regex works fine on Windows, at least on
I've had an idea stewing in my head to do with per-type function
namespaces, that the current module namespace discussion reminded me
about. The problem is that there is a limited namespace for functions,
so that if you define a new data type, it is unwise to call functions
which work on that
I've had an idea stewing in my head to do with per-type function
namespaces, that the current module namespace discussion reminded me
about. The problem is that there is a limited namespace for functions,
so that if you define a new data type, it is unwise to call functions
which work on
Aetion Technologies LLC seeks another high-quality programmer.
Development is mostly in Haskell, with some Java, mostly under Linux.
An ideal candidate is excellent at acquiring, applying, and writing
about new knowledge. Additional background in disciplines like
mathematics, science, engineering,
On 27/02/2004, at 3:47 AM, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
I've had an idea stewing in my head to do with per-type function
namespaces, that the current module namespace discussion reminded me
about. The problem is that there is a limited namespace for
functions,
so that if you define a new data type,
I think that this is a problem that can be solved with a simple convention
change, rather than a language extension - instead of appending type
names, I think it would be much better if modules simply used the short,
convenient, common names and expected the user to import them qualified
where
On 27/02/2004, at 8:28 AM, Abraham Egnor wrote:
I think that this is a problem that can be solved with a simple
convention
change, rather than a language extension - instead of appending type
names, I think it would be much better if modules simply used the
short,
convenient, common names and
Mr. Ozone wrote:
[snip]
So at the moment, many Haskellers will append the type name to the
function to indicate that it only works on that particular data type.
In this respect, Haskell is at a disadvantage vs most object-oriented
languages, because in them, you can write x.add, and the
Is fixing GHC arrays a big research job or is it
something that someone can straightforwardly
handle if my site actually gets enough traffic to
warrant it?
-Alex-
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| But in managing this tradeoff, what is faster:
| * constructing/destructing e.g.
I went ahead and implemented Perl Compatable Regular Expression support
as well as a module which uses template haskell to check regular
expressions at runtime.
The full set of modules is
RRegex - PCRE if available, else Posix, (compatable with Text.Regex)
RRegex.PCRE- Perl compatable
Gabriel wrote:
| This overloading by namespace is usually called either ADL
| (Argument-Dependent Lookup) or Koenig Lookup (especially in C++.)
Actually in C++, it is called argument dependent name
lookup, and that is the way the C++ definition text calls
it. As Andy Koenig has himself
Peter Strand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is, a function is looked up in the namespaces of its arguments as
well as in the normal places. So add fm k v where fm :: FiniteMap,
x :: Int, v :: String would look for add in the modules where
FiniteMap, Int and String was defined.
I suppose
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/02/2004, at 1:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) now I have to manually declare a class definition for every single
function, and I have to declare it in advance before any module defines
that function (most serious problem; see below),
2)
On 27/02/2004, at 1:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, say I'm writing the Data.Complex module; there's a
function in that module phase :: RealFloat a = Complex a - a. So,
how do you put this phase function into a type class? Perhaps you
could abstract away from the RealFloat and
Hello!
So, how can you come up with a type class which provides a polymorphic
'add' function, considering you don't even know how many parameters
each data type's individual add function uses?
Very easily: every Haskell function takes only one
argument. Always. Ever.
For example, say I'm
Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haskell's module system provides a way for a module to merge multiple
modules into one but provides no way to eliminate any ambiguities this
may create. If we want to be able to use names like 'create' instead
of 'createFont', we need to change the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've had an idea stewing in my head to do with per-type function
namespaces, .
The idea that I've been throwing around is to be able to define a
separate namespace for each type; a function can either belong in a
global (default) namespace, or belong in a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
addToFM :: Ord key = FiniteMap key elt - key - elt - FiniteMap key
elt
addToSet :: Ord a = Set a - a - Set a
So, how can you come up with a type class which provides a
polymorphic 'add' function, considering you don't even know how many
parameters each data
Hi,
I am very new to haskell.
Could anyone please explain why these two things are not equivalent:
m2 = do a - (drawInt 1 10)
print a
drawInt :: Int - Int - IO Int
drawInt x y = getStdRandom (randomR (x,y))
m1 = do b - getStdRandom (randomR (1,10))
print b
the
horsh wrote:
I am very new to haskell.
Could anyone please explain why these two things are not equivalent:
m2 = do a - (drawInt 1 10)
print a
drawInt :: Int - Int - IO Int
drawInt x y = getStdRandom (randomR (x,y))
m1 = do b - getStdRandom (randomR (1,10))
horsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could anyone please explain why these two things are not equivalent:
One of them has a type signature?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
29 matches
Mail list logo
