Mon, 7 May 2001 03:15:16 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
The constraint (*) also specifies that 'range' returns subscripts
in increasing order of index. That seems reasonable, but perhaps
less important.
It is important if elems should return elements in the same order as
On 07-May-2001, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In thinking about this I've realised that there's an assumption in
the Ix interface that
(*) map index (range (l,u)) = [0..rangeSize (l,u)-1]
...
The constraint (*) also specifies that 'range' returns subscripts
in increasing
On 02-May-2001, Matt Harden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Harden wrote:
blah, blah, blah, bug in the Library Report, blah, blah...
OK, so I failed to read the Library Report. It clearly states:
An implementation is entitled to assume the following laws about these operations:
Matt Harden wrote:
blah, blah, blah, bug in the Library Report, blah, blah...
OK, so I failed to read the Library Report. It clearly states:
An implementation is entitled to assume the following laws about these operations:
range (l,u) !! index (l,u) i == i -- when i is in
Matt Harden wrote:
blah, blah, blah, bug in the Library Report, blah, blah...
OK, so I failed to read the Library Report. It clearly states:
An implementation is entitled to assume the following laws about these operations:
range (l,u) !! index (l,u) i == i -- when i is in
Sorry if this has been reported before.
I shouldn't be able to crash ghc or hugs without using any unsafe
features, right? Well, here 'tis:
module CrashArray where
import Array
import Ix
newtype CrashIx = CrashIx Int deriving (Ord, Eq, Show)
instance Enum CrashIx where
toEnum
Sorry if this has been reported before.
I shouldn't be able to crash ghc or hugs without using any unsafe
features, right? Well, here 'tis:
module CrashArray where
import Array
import Ix
newtype CrashIx = CrashIx Int deriving (Ord, Eq, Show)
instance Enum CrashIx where
toEnum
