On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Benjamin Pierce wrote:
* As far as I can determine, there is no way to check pattern matches for exhaustiveness. Coming from OCaml, this feels like losing a significant safety net! How do people program so as not to be getting dynamic match failures all the time?
Where not sure, a wildcard pattern at the end of the pattern list catches things. Myself I was always more irritated that I couldn't type things in such a way that the typechecker would catch it.
I've clearly got a lot to learn about space usage in Haskell... can someone give me a hint about what is the problem here and how it might best be corrected?
Having given the code but the briefest glance, I suspect laziness is biting you? If so, others will be able to give you good pointers - I've not really had to deal with it myself (seq and strict constructors are probably good places to start from what I hear though). -- flippa@flippac.org Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recomendations. Ivanova is God. And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out!