What GHC are you testing against? I suspect https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/merge_requests/668 will fix this.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:20 PM Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I discovered today that GHC never specializes functions with implicit > parameters. This is not that surprising—I wouldn’t expect GHC to specialize > the implicit parameters themselves—but it’s unfortunate because it means a > single implicit parameter somewhere can transitively destroy specialization > that would otherwise be very helpful. > > Is there any obstacle to specializing these functions’ other dictionaries > and leaving the implicit parameters alone? That is, if I have a function > > foo :: (?foo :: Bool, Show a) => a -> String > > could GHC specialize `foo @Int` to > > foo :: (?foo :: Bool) => Int -> String > > treating the implicit parameter little differently from an ordinary > function argument? > > As far as I can tell, there isn’t any real obstacle to doing this, so > unless I’m missing something, I might give it a try myself. I just wanted > to make sure I wasn’t missing anything before diving in. > > Thanks, > Alexis > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
