Please post - apologies for multiple copies.
MKM 2004
Third International Conference on
MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
http://mizar.org/MKM2004
September 19 -
S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
> Also, is there a way to get the typesystem to
> tell you which functions may fail i.e. which
> functions have failMsg as an implicit parameter?
Generally speaking, that is not that easy. If we have a functional
composition (foo . bar), we wish its
Hmm, those options don't work with ghci (where you
are more likely to be debugging).
Also, is there a way to get the typesystem to
tell you which functions may fail i.e. which
functions have failMsg as an implicit parameter?
-Alex-
> This is due to the nature of exceptions in Haskell. Evaluating the
> expression (do a <- getLine; hPutStrLn ...) does not do any IO, and it
> doesn't raise any exceptions, so the mapException doesn't get to
> annotate any exceptions.
Urgh, so the automatic annotation I suggested suffers from t
On 24 June 2004 11:54, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> With reference to "mapException", I thought this seemed a good idea.
> I like the 'AnnotatedException' idea... this is much better than
> concatenating strings... However for not I thought I would test it
> as is, but it doesn't work as I thought - pe
With reference to "mapException", I thought this seemed a good idea.
I like the 'AnnotatedException' idea... this is much better than
concatenating strings... However for not I thought I would test it
as is, but it doesn't work as I thought - perhaps someone could
point out where I have gone wrong
On 24 June 2004 10:31, Alastair Reid wrote:
>> [...]
>> 2. Use the mapException trick to annotate exceptions as they
>> travel up the stack (see Alastair Reid's message). [...]
>> (2) requires that you add lots of annotations to your code, so it's
>> not entirely satisfactory for that rea
> [...]
> 2. Use the mapException trick to annotate exceptions as they
> travel up the stack (see Alastair Reid's message).
> [...]
> (2) requires that you add lots of annotations to your code, so it's not
> entirely satisfactory for that reason.
Would it be possible to generalise ghc's -
On 23 June 2004 18:39, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 23-Jun-2004, MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This may not be the right answer to the question (which is of
>> course lets write a debugger) - But I have never used a debugger,
>> and find them more or less the most unfriendly and use
MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Thank you for the programming practice recomendation,
> Sorry if it seemed like that...
Huh - I thought that was sincere; certainly I am happy to learn about
sensible (or not) practices that others find useful.
> but I do feel that 'commercial quali
Switching on profiling (-prof -auto-all) does essentially just this. The
cost centre stack is just like an implicit parameters, only one that
does not show up in the types.
Since there really is some extra parameter passing going on, you really
do need to recompile (all) the code. That's a nuisan
11 matches
Mail list logo
