Re: [Haskell] Re: ANNOUNCE: HNOP 0.1

[moved to cafe] On Jun 30, 2006, at 4:01 AM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
In article <252C89C12FCAD84BA018CAD5268682FD0190C955@GBLONXMB02.corp.amvescap.net
, "Bayley, Alistair"
wrote: Cool, that's awesome. But I don't see any Haddock docs? Or a Cabal Setup.hs? Would it be much trouble to add them?
Bear in mind HNOP compiles just to an executable file, so it doesn't really have a Haskell API.
One interesting line of development would be to spin off the core functionality into a separate library, to provide no-op services to other Haskell applications.
I'm sorry; I know this is a serious discussion (either that or everyone involved in this discussion has a more subtle sense of humor than I), but this sentence made me laugh out loud... :-) "no-op services"? That's just great!
I'm thinking something like this:
noop :: IO () -- generalise to other Monads?
This would actually not be too hard to write, given my existing work, and then of course the executable would simply be a thin wrapper.
-- Ashley Yakeley Seattle WA
Rob Dockins Speak softly and drive a Sherman tank. Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank. -- TMBG

From: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Robert Dockins
[moved to cafe]
On Jun 30, 2006, at 4:01 AM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
In article
<252C89C12FCAD84BA018CAD5268682FD0190C955@GBLONXMB02.corp.amve scap.net
, "Bayley, Alistair"
wrote: Cool, that's awesome. But I don't see any Haddock docs? Or a Cabal Setup.hs? Would it be much trouble to add them?
Bear in mind HNOP compiles just to an executable file, so it doesn't really have a Haskell API.
One interesting line of development would be to spin off the core functionality into a separate library, to provide no-op services to other Haskell applications.
I'm sorry; I know this is a serious discussion (either that or everyone involved in this discussion has a more subtle sense of humor than I), but this sentence made me laugh out loud... :-)
"no-op services"? That's just great!
Initially I assumed it was just a joke, and my response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek (why would you need Haddock docs for this!?), but there has been a semi-serious thread about the executable size, so who knows anymore... Alistair ***************************************************************** Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *****************************************************************
participants (2)
-
Bayley, Alistair
-
Robert Dockins