On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:34:31AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> Part of my current interest in #2 is that I have been experimenting with
> some full-program optimization algorithms which could perhaps give
> substantial gains but would pretty much obliterate any uses of the
> unsafePerformIO global
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:38:26 -0500, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thanks for you work! The indentation works much better than
before. However, I have some feature requests/bugs:
- indentation in do monad: lines after "let" should have 2 possible
indentations. One for new let bindings
> thanks for you work! The indentation works much better than
> before. However, I have some feature requests/bugs:
> - indentation in do monad: lines after "let" should have 2 possible
> indentations. One for new let bindings (how it is currently) and one for
> further monad expressions. Examp
Hi,
thanks for you work! The indentation works much better than before. However, I
have some feature requests/bugs:
- indentation in do monad: lines after "let" should have 2 possible
indentations. One for new let bindings (how it is currently) and one for further monad
expressions. Example:
> While playing with the new mode I discovered a small deficiency in the menu
> "Declarations" -> "Imports" (that I've never used before). The names of the
> imported modules are cut off after the first dot. Instead of
> i.e. "Data.List" only "Data" is displayed. (There may be several dots in
> a m
On Friday 26 Nov 2004 11:39 am, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Adrian Hey wrote:
> >Well it can be written in Haskell, but not using a module that was
> >specifically designed to prevent this.
>
> Well, It can be written in Haskell as it stands at the moment...
No it can't. If I have a device driver that'
Stefan Monnier wrote:
I have recently taken over maintainership of Haskell-mode, and after making
a bunch of changes, I figured it would be a good idea to make a new release.
You can find this new release at:
http://www-perso.iro.umontreal.ca/~monnier/elisp/
Thank you!
This release has seve
Genuinely inspiring though it is to observe the vitality of the Haskell
community, especially by comparison with we taciturn SML folks, recent
discussions on top-level initialization etc. have got a bit high-bandwidth for
the casual lurker. I really don't want to unsubscribe, so might I politely
At 19:14 25/11/04 +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Graham Klyne wrote:
I have a concern with this, if I understand the issue correctly.
Suppose I have a source module that compiles and runs correctly.
Now suppose I add a restricted (selective) import statement to the file,
explicitly introducing a
Adrian Hey wrote:
Well it can be written in Haskell, but not using a module that was
specifically designed to prevent this.
Well, It can be written in Haskell as it stands at the moment... This
proposal
would break that...
You want the library programmer to have final say.
I want the library user
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 4:53 pm, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Thanks Adrian, for some reason I did not get the original reply to this
> post.
>
> This was my point, I may _want_ two copies of the library. Lets say I
> want to
> write a virtual machine emulator in haskell, and I then wish to use your
> li
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 07:52:43PM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
As I'm sure you have gathered from all the answers you can't have the
latter and keep Haskell pure. But there is an interesting alternative
(at least theoretically). You could have a function like
mkCatchJu
Ah, I see... Thats basically the same problem as overlapping instances
then...
(Which we have - but I try to avoid except where unavoidable...). Still,
It seems
it could be a good 'optional' feature.
Keean.
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Keean Schupke wrote:
Daan Leijen wrote:
You are right, I fee
13 matches
Mail list logo
