> Simple is good. But what is this dead simple idea? I'm referring to David's first e-mail on this thread: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-September/016191.html
All that would take is putting Coercion in TysWiredIn, and moving Coercion from Data.Type.Coercion to somewhere in ghc-prim. > Maybe this thread belongs with the proposal, unless I’m misunderstanding. I think the intention is to have that proposal (which proposes a language change) be superseded by this idea (which does not change the language). Ryan S. On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Simple is good. But what is this dead simple idea? > > > > Perhaps: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/116 > > But that proposal lists several possible alternatives. Which one did you > mean? > > > > And all of them are language changes. Making evidence strict would require > no language changes to solve the original problem. > > > > Maybe this thread belongs with the proposal, unless I’m misunderstanding. > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* ghc-devs <ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Scott > *Sent:* 05 September 2018 15:15 > *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org > *Subject:* Re: Unpacking coercions > > > > These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. While I'm sure there's many ways we > could solve this problem, David's idea has the distinct advantage of being > dead simple. I'd rather not block his vision on some other large refactor > that may never materialize. (And if it _does_ materialize, we could revert > any wiring-in of Coercible quite easily.) > > > > Ryan S. >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
