Hello,
> Manual Typeable deriving should probably be disabled :-)
>
There are legitimate reasons to define your own Typeable instances.
Since Typeable already contains all the machinery you need to type a
standard functional language, it is nice to just add Typeable
instances when defining your ow
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
typeOf / Typeable is itself an ugly special case,
Right.
> and really should be designed into the language
That's not necessary. The same thing can be done with top-level "<-"
(see other thread).
--
Ashley Yakeley
___
On 2008 Aug 25, at 0:33, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
You just wrote unsafeCoere# a different way:
typeOf T = typeOf (undefined :: IORef ())
Right. It's straightforward to write unsafe segfaulting code in
apparently safe Haskell.
typeOf / Typeable is itself an ugly speci
Don Stewart wrote:
You just wrote unsafeCoere# a different way:
typeOf T = typeOf (undefined :: IORef ())
Right. It's straightforward to write unsafe segfaulting code in
apparently safe Haskell.
Manual Typeable deriving should probably be disabled :-)
Another ugly special-case h
ashley:
> Thomas Davie wrote:
> >I'd be interested to see your other examples -- because that error is
> >not happening in Haskell! You can't argue that Haskell doesn't give you
> >no segfaults, because you can embed a C segfault within Haskell.
>
> This segfaults on my x86_64 Linux box:
>
>
Thomas Davie wrote:
I'd be interested to see your other examples -- because that error is
not happening in Haskell! You can't argue that Haskell doesn't give you
no segfaults, because you can embed a C segfault within Haskell.
This segfaults on my x86_64 Linux box:
module Main where
impo
