I have a new question: I'm working on supporting literals now. I'm having
trouble creating something that looks like `(App (Var F#) (Lit 1.0))` because
I don't know how to create a variable that corresponds to the `F#`
constructor. The mkWiredInName function looks promising, but overly
Hi all,
I'm very confused by an optimization GHC is doing. I have this code:
data Tree a = Leaf a | Branch (Tree a) (Tree a)
deriving (Generic, Show, NFData)
data Tree1 a = Leaf1 a | Branch1 (Tree1 a) (Tree1 a)
deriving (Show)
instance NFData a = NFData (Tree1 a) where
Hi there,
GHC can often do a pretty good job at optimising generics. I wrote a paper
that looks at that in detail:
José Pedro Magalhães. Optimisation of Generic Programs through Inlining. In
24th Symposium on Implementation and Application of Functional Languages
(IFL'12), 2013.
I would suggest treating a = 1 as a declaration. This is what IHaskell
does, and it seems more intuitive than hacky parsing it into a let a = 1.
The implementation should be easy using runDecls from InteractiveEval and
parseDeclaration from Parser.y to do the actual parsing.
-- Andrew
On Sat,
Awesome, thanks for the pointer, Pedro.
2015-08-22 19:01 GMT-04:00 José Pedro Magalhães drei...@gmail.com:
Hi there,
GHC can often do a pretty good job at optimising generics. I wrote a paper
that looks at that in detail:
José Pedro Magalhães. Optimisation of Generic Programs through
I'm thinking of working on this ticket (
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7253), so, as per mpickering's
suggestion (https://phabricator.haskell.org/chatlog/channel/3/?at=1353572),
I'm emailing the list to solicit input.
My first instinct was to treat declarations like a = 1 in GHCI as
From time to time, a library lacks an instance for something that I want.
For example, I may need to convert
data Foo = Bar (Vector Baz)
to FishFood, but (to avoid unreasonable dependencies) Vector doesn't have a
ToFishFood instance, so I can't just write
instance ToFishFood Foo
and (using
