Ian Lynagh wrote:
now, if you think that's too much of a hack to put in the official repo,
just say so :-)
In my opinion it is. Also, if we manage to separate GHC.* into a
separate package to the portable base names then it will be redundant.
yes, if possible, that would be good
~Isaac
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 07:08:50AM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
> >Isaac Dupree wrote:
> >>/* This makes it easier to test building without GHC extensions,
> >> * used in import statements such as "import GHC_EXTS.IOBase", to
> >> * provide distinguishment from the GHC API's mod
Simon Marlow wrote:
Isaac Dupree wrote:
/* This makes it easier to test building without GHC extensions,
* used in import statements such as "import GHC_EXTS.IOBase", to
* provide distinguishment from the GHC API's module GHC */
#ifdef __GLASGOW_HASKELL__
#define GHC_EXTS GHC
#else
/* let it b
Isaac Dupree wrote:
In other words, about 16 pieces of junk removed and 81 needed imports
added... but GHC modules usually import lots of what they need, so why
not? _ILIT already needs to be imported from FastTypes.
Go ahead. The current implicit import of FastString is a pain.
Also, I'm
what do you think of removing the implicit qualified FastString import,
so you have to explicitly import FastString?
currently about 86 modules using F/SLIT already import FastString
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /U/m/u/ghc-HEAD> grep -rl '\\|\' compiler/|xargs
grep -l 'import.*FastString'|wc -l
86
and
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:21:29PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> er, I replied, attaching an amended patch, and it told me the message
> awaited moderator approval? what's this?
It hit the lists's message size limit, and as it didn't look like a
"darcs send" message it was held. I've let it throu
er, I replied, attaching an amended patch, and it told me the message
awaited moderator approval? what's this?
Isaac
___
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>
> argh! conflicts!
Ug, sorry about that :-(
> oh, darnit, you wanted to panic for invalid FastBools... which seems
> reasonable and hard to work around. (although: if the code typechecks
> with FastBool=Bool, then I don't think it'
Isaac Dupree wrote:
Isaac Dupree wrote:
oh, darnit, you wanted to panic for invalid FastBools... which seems
reasonable and hard to work around.
although if they're really supposed to be Fast, I question putting any
extra checks than "is it equal to zero or not" for example, even to
panic.
Isaac Dupree wrote:
oh, darnit, you wanted to panic for invalid FastBools... which seems
reasonable and hard to work around.
although if they're really supposed to be Fast, I question putting any
extra checks than "is it equal to zero or not" for example, even to
panic. chr# doesn't do check
Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi Isaac,
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:38:34PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
okay, this is a bunch but not all of the work. I'd like to have another
set of eyes look over it before committing, is all.
Great stuff! Looks good to me, feel free to push (assuming it
validates).
ar
Hi Isaac,
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:38:34PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> okay, this is a bunch but not all of the work. I'd like to have another
> set of eyes look over it before committing, is all.
Great stuff! Looks good to me, feel free to push (assuming it
validates).
If you'd like me to
12 matches
Mail list logo
