| By the way, using Integer for exponents really shouldn't be less
| efficient -
| but it seems it is.
|
| The code for (^) should be something like this:
|
| {-# INLINE ^ #-}
| n ^ m = case toInteger m of
| S# i -> powerInt# n i
| J# a p -> powerGmp n a p
I've done something l
| happens because I don't want to actually use defaulting, but I would
| have no objection to the warning being suppressed if someone has
| explicitly given a "default" declaration (and thus, presumably, does
| want to use defaulting).
I'm not against this particular proposal if there's a consensu
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:53:18AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> It continues to appear to me that "ghc -Wall -Werror" doesn't support
> small Int constants without a per-use penalty, measured in code length.
Why not use "ghc -Wall -Werror -fno-warn-defaulting", maybe with
default(Int)? It removes
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:37:15AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> >
> > > z = r Prelude.^ 3
>
> I don't know if (^) in particular is what is causing you problems, but
> IMO it has the wrong type; just as we have
> (!!) :: [a]
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 07:31:09PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I don't know if (^) in particular is what is causing you problems, but
IMO it has the wrong type; just as we have
(!!) :: [a] -> Int -> a
genericIndex :: (Integral b) => [a] -> b -> a
we should also ha
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 07:31:09PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> I don't know if (^) in particular is what is causing you problems, but
> IMO it has the wrong type; just as we have
> (!!) :: [a] -> Int -> a
> genericIndex :: (Integral b) => [a] -> b -> a
> we should a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:37:15AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
>
> > z = r Prelude.^ 3
I don't know if (^) in particular is what is causing you problems, but
IMO it has the wrong type; just as we have
(!!) :: [a] -> Int -> a
genericIndex :: (Integral b) => [a] -
> I've been going over my code trying to get it all to compile with
> "ghc -Wall -Werror"
I recently ran across what may be a good reason not to use -Wall in
combination with -Werror (and similar combinations in other
compilers), at least not as the standard build switches for software
you intend
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
i2 = 2 :: Int
i3 = 3 :: Int
The code
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall -Werror #-}
module Main where
i2 = 2 :: Int
i3 = 3 :: Int
main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn $ show (i2,i3)
generates the errors
Main.hs:5:0: Warning: Definition but no type si
| Unless I misunderstand and it is already possible, I'd now prefer a
| language extension that allows the explicit declarations
|
| > 2,3 :: Int
|
| once for each affected numeric literal.
i2 = 2 :: Int
i3 = 3 :: Int
S
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Has
On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The intention is that it should be straightforward to suppress
warnings.
Simply add a type signature for 'z', or for the naked 3 in z's
definition.
I constructed my example from larger modules peppered with small
integer constants;
The intention is that it should be straightforward to suppress warnings.
Warning about defaulting is important, because it's a place where a silent
choice affects the dynamic semantics of your program. You can suppress the
warning by supplying a type signature. In your example:
| > main =
| >
On Jun 22, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
(1) any way to flag a pattern match as "I know this is okay", don't
warn about it" without shutting off pattern match warnings completely?
GHC doesn't issue warnings about patterns on the left of =
For example, the following code c
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, David Roundy wrote:
> > I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and recite precisely what I'm told a
> > type is in June, 2007; I'm hoping that types will evolve by the time
> > I die. For types to evolves, we need to step back a few feet and
> > think more loosely what a type really
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 05:39:10PM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 4:37 PM, David Roundy wrote:
>
> >You get strongly-typed code whether or not you enable warnings.
>
> In my opinion it's delusional to think one is using strong typing if
> one doesn't enable warnings. All the puf
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:14:06PM -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 06:11:24PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> > (1) any way to flag a pattern match as "I know this is okay", don't
> > warn about it" without shutting off pattern match warnings completely?
>
>
> cas
Hi
> All the puffing about the advantages of
> strong typing look pretty silly if code hangs up on an incomplete
> pattern.
Okay... people who don't worry so much about incomplete patterns believe
that they get things done.
There are trade offs in type systems about how much effort you want to
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 17:39 -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 4:37 PM, David Roundy wrote:
>
> > You get strongly-typed code whether or not you enable warnings.
>
> In my opinion it's delusional to think one is using strong typing if
> one doesn't enable warnings. All the puffing a
On Jun 22, 2007, at 4:37 PM, David Roundy wrote:
You get strongly-typed code whether or not you enable warnings.
In my opinion it's delusional to think one is using strong typing if
one doesn't enable warnings. All the puffing about the advantages of
strong typing look pretty silly if code
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:07:59PM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 2:46 PM, David Roundy wrote:
> >I think of top-level type declarations as type-checked comments, rather
> >than a seat-belt. It forces you to communicate to others what a
> >function does, if that function may be use
On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:29 , Henning Thielemann wrote:
If the error occurs anyway, you get a report that your believe was
wrong.
(Or the user gets the report, and he doesn't know how to react.)
Well, that's why I included the other leg, where I'd like the
compiler to catch me at compile ti
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 00:29 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> > I have a program which I'm checking with -Wall but not -Werror,
> > because it has several pattern matches which *I* know are fine but
> > which ghc doesn't. (I suspect, from
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Dave Bayer wrote:
> If I import a module that I don't use, then "ghc -Wall -Werror"
> rightly complains. By analogy, if I use "default (Int)" to ask GHC to
> default to Int but the situation never arises, then GHC should
> rightly complain. Instead, if I use "default (Int)",
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> I have a program which I'm checking with -Wall but not -Werror,
> because it has several pattern matches which *I* know are fine but
> which ghc doesn't. (I suspect, from its description, that Catch
> would also recognize it's fine.) Which
On Jun 22, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dave Bayer wrote:
In particular, I always want defaulting errors, because sometimes I
miss the fact that numbers I can count on my fingers are defaulting
to Integer.
So no one took the bait to actually offer me a shorter idiom, but I
thought about the above s
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 06:11:24PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> (1) any way to flag a pattern match as "I know this is okay", don't
> warn about it" without shutting off pattern match warnings completely?
case scrutinee of
Pattern -> alternative
Pattern -> alternative
_ -> err
On Jun 22, 2007, at 17:46 , David Roundy wrote:
-Wall -Werror isn't a seat belt, it's a coding-style guideline.
So, as long as we're on this topic...
I have a program which I'm checking with -Wall but not -Werror,
because it has several pattern matches which *I* know are fine but
which g
On Jun 22, 2007, at 2:46 PM, David Roundy wrote:
I think of top-level type declarations as type-checked comments,
rather
than a seat-belt. It forces you to communicate to others what a
function
does, if that function may be used elsewhere. I like this.
Although it can
be cumbersome for q
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:34:09PM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:42 AM, David Roundy wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:37:15AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> >>GHC issues a "Warning: Defaulting the following constraint(s) to type
> >>`Int'" for the definition of z.
> >
> >Why
On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:42 AM, David Roundy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:37:15AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
GHC issues a "Warning: Defaulting the following constraint(s) to type
`Int'" for the definition of z.
Why don't you just use -fno-warn-type-defaults?
...
ghc -Werr -Wall is a often
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:37:15AM -0700, Dave Bayer wrote:
> GHC issues a "Warning: Defaulting the following constraint(s) to type
> `Int'" for the definition of z.
Why don't you just use -fno-warn-type-defaults? Warnings are just that:
warnings. If you believe the defaulting matches what you
Hi all,
I've been going over my code trying to get it all to compile with
"ghc -Wall -Werror", without introducing constructs that would make
my code the laughing stock of the dynamic typing community. They
already think we're nuts; my daydreams are of a more computer
literate society whe
32 matches
Mail list logo
