Re: preprocessing printf/regex strings (like ocaml)

On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 06:37 AM, anatoli wrote: > Brian Huffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here is a printf-style function that I hacked up this morning; it uses >> type >> classes but it doesn't need functional dependencies: > [snip] > > It's very nice and even extendable, though `cla

Re: preprocessing printf/regex strings (like ocaml)

the python string notation (str % tuple) would fit really well too... putStrLn "hello %s, you got %d right" % ("oliver", 5) Might be nice. What would be the type of putStrLn then? The type of putStrLn would remain unchanged. The idea would be to let the compiler translate the string "hello %s,

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

Hi all, How about the following syntax: (addBase 5 | ?base = 10) This is quite unlike from other binding constructs in Haskell, so maybe something more similar to list comprehension would be better: (addBase 5 | ?base <- 10) Cheers, Sebastien

Re: ghc 5 on mac os x

> I was just wondering if you have tried to get the OS X > port of GHC 5 to work. I tried compiling this monster > with GHC 4.08.1, but could not get around what > appeared to be syntax errors showing up in the source. > > Have you made any progress? I have built a binary distribution which is j

Re: GHC on MacOS X

en if you manage to compile it - the MachO binary architecture requires some adjustments in the RTS. A while ago I managed to get that working, but I stupidly lost some of the patches. I've been too busy to do it again recently, but I will have more time by the end of the month. -- Sebastien Car

Re: The Do-Let-Braces problem

editor which works in a similar way. It wouldn't be adequate for Haskell, but it demonstrates the idea. By the way, with a proper editor, you wouldn't even need the layout rule. Source code would be stored with explicit bracing, and the editor could hide all these cluttering symbols, or di

Re: An Haskell compilation server

John Meacham wrote: > the benefits may not be as great as you suppose, modern operating > systems keep a buffer cache which contains all recently used data in > memory including executables, if your machine is not memory limited > (such that the OS would have to throw away your ghc pages to make

An Haskell compilation server

about (should the parsing be made locally by the driver, or remotely...). How does it sound ? -- Sebastien Carlier EPITA, Posse42 ___ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: Extending the do-notation

> import Monad > ... > do y <- liftM unzip m1 Thanks. I'm constantly amazed by the number of tricks one has to know before he can write concise code using the do-notation (among other things, I used to write "x <- return $ m" instead of "let x = m"). Is there a paper demonstrating the most

Extending the do-notation

Sometimes I need to write code which looks like this: >do x <- m1 > let y = unzip x > ... -- never using x anymore I thinks the following extension to do-notation would be useful: >pat <- exp1 # exp2 ; exp3 would be rewritten as >exp2 >>= ((\pat -> exp3) . exp1) so that

Excessive restriction in ghc ?

re. Either I am misunderstanding something, or something may be missing in the compiler around rename/RnSource.lhs:249. Regards, Sebastien Carlier ___ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell