Thank you for referencing the issue, I couldn't find it anymore for some
reason.
While the technicality of the "errors-as-values" proposal might delay
the implementation of such a taxonomy,
I think we could totally lay the groundwork and actually work on
defining it first.
On 15/06/2020 23:28, Artem Pelenitsyn wrote:
As a side note, the idea of making a taxonomy of errors with unique
tagging has been brought up on ghc-proposals recently, although marked
as out-of-scope (maybe rightly so):
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/325
The ease of searching is among the major motivations behind it.
--
Best, Artem
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:07 PM Hécate <hec...@glitchbra.in
<mailto:hec...@glitchbra.in>> wrote:
On 15/06/2020 19:50, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Frankly, this makes me wonder whether we should change the output
> produced for loops. The current error is essentially
un-Googleable, as
> we see here. I know I have personally struggled with this same
issue in
> the past.
I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion. Maybe we could even
start a
little taxonomy of errors by adding an error code
to the message that would be more searchable? Something like E5032?
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
