On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michał, > > Dataflow module could indeed use cleanup. I have made two attempts at this > in the past but I don't > think any of them was merged - see [1] and [2]. [2] was mostly > type-directed simplifications. It > would be nice to have this included in one form or another. It sounds like > you also have a more > in-depth refactoring in mind. Personally as long as it is semantically > correct I think it will be > a good thing. I would especially support removing dead code that we don't > really use. > > [1] https://github.com/jstolarek/ghc/commits/js-hoopl-cleanup-v2 > [2] https://github.com/jstolarek/ghc/commits/js-hoopl-cleanup-v2 Ok, I'll have a look at this! (did you intend to send two identical links?) > Second question: how could we merge this? (...) > I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly > the same, right? Are > you asking for advice what is the best way of doing this from a technical > point if view? I would > simply edit the existing module. Introducing a temporary second module > seems like unnecessary > extra work and perhaps complicating the patch review. > Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC usually are). > > I’m happy to export the code to Phab if you prefer - I wasn’t sure what’s > > the recommended workflow for code that’s not ready for review… > This is OK but please remember to set status of revision to "Planned > changes" after uploading it > to Phab so it doesn't sit in reviewing queue. > Cool, I didn't know about the "Planned changes" status. Thanks for mentioning it! Cheers, Michal
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
