Ketil Malde wrote:
I'd really like to have errors on overflow, at least as an option, even
if it is costly in terms of performance. Is there a Trac ticket or
something for this?
Not that I know of. I filed a Trac ticket against ByteString's readInt
function before I noticed that read has th
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 10:55 -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> In a similar vein, I was initially perplexed when I
> found that an expression like this produces garbage instead of an error:
>
>read "111" :: Int
>
> I have not seen a lot of interest expressed in
On Jul 11, 2007, at 19:11 , Thomas Conway wrote:
Is there a compelling reason (hysterical raisins is not a compelling
reason) why Data.*.{length,size,take,drop,etc} use Int and not Num n
=> or similar?
Efficiency, but many of them have generic equivalents (e.g.
genericLength, genericDr
On 7/12/07, Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed. I beleive that Int should be removed from the Prelude.
metoo.
Actually, one of the really annoying things that I am finding in my
code which is a mixture of ByteString, Word16, Word32 and Word64, is
that all the standard libraries u
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:16:50PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
>> Richard Kelsall wrote:
>>
>>> I guess there must be a switch to make it produce a nice
>>> error message rather than overflowing without warning.
>>
>> Actually, there isn't.
>
> I for one sometimes wish the
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Richard Kelsall wrote:
I guess there must be a switch to make it produce a nice
error message rather than overflowing without warning.
Actually, there isn't.
I for one sometimes wish there was...
Of course, sometimes you purposely write code which you know is going
Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
I'm just being picky here: where the underlying machine's behaviour is
2's complement binary, it (Int, +, *) is actually a tidy, well-behaved
mathematical ring, isomorphic to Z / 2^n Z.
Yes, naturally it wasn't until a few moments after I had sent the
message that I n
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Int is a bit of an odd fish that way; it's a
window onto the underlying machine's behaviour, not a tidy, well-behaved
mathematical ring.
I'm just being picky here: where the underlying machine's behaviour is
2's complement binary, it (Int, +, *) is actually a tidy, wel
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:55:28AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> Richard Kelsall wrote:
>> It seems to randomly claim to have successfully created huge sizes
>> of array.
>
> This may be outside of Haskell's control, as you're not actually touching
> the memory you allocate. I wouldn't be surp
Richard Kelsall wrote:
main = do
n <- getArgs >>= readIO . head :: IO Int
a <- newArray (1,n) True :: IO (IOUArray Int Bool)
printf "Created array 1 .. %8d \n" (n::Int) :: IO ()
It appears to work up to quite large numbers, but then gets strange.
When I give it an array size of 1,00
My first ever Haskell program just creates an array in memory.
I wanted to try creating really big arrays.
import Data.Array.IO
import System
import Text.Printf
main = do
n <- getArgs >>= readIO . head :: IO Int
a <- newArray (1,n) True :: IO (IOUArray Int Bool)
printf "Created array
11 matches
Mail list logo
