I read the email thread you refer to but it doesn't seem to explain why you went with solution 2. If you think it worthwhile can you explain here why you chose solution 2?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:55 PM Andreas Klebinger <klebinger.andr...@gmx.at> wrote: > There was a discussion about making UniqFM typed for the keys here a > while ago. > (https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2020-January/018451.html > and following) > > I wrote up an MR for one possible approach here: > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3577 > > It implements solution 2 from that discussion. > > Just while getting the patch to typecheck I've already seen a number of > cases where this increased > readability of the code quite a bit so I think it's a good improvement. > > If there are strong objections to this solution let me know. In that > case I'm happy to abandon the patch. > If not I will clean it up and get it ready for merging. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
