> On Nov 19, 2020, at 4:14 AM, Adam Gundry <a...@well-typed.com> wrote:
>
> As part of removing Deriveds, do you plan to change the type-checker
> plugin interface to drop the redundant argument? Although I suppose GHC
> could simply pass an empty list to the plugin.
No -- I think we'll just remove the unused parameter. So much is changing in
this space that the tiny bit of back-compat leaving that parameter would grant
is a false promise.
>
> Ideally we would have a spec (or at least some tests!) for what
> constraints get presented to plugins. The current implementation is
> rather dependent on whatever GHC's solver happens to produce. In my
> paper [3] I tried to specify plugins based on the published description
> of OutsideIn(X), but that's far enough from the reality of GHC that it
> isn't much help in practice. (One point it lacks is any treatment of
> Deriveds, so I'm happy to see them go!)
Yes. But this is really hard, and it would likely make e.g. my simplifications
harder to execute on. (That is, it would be nice, but it wouldn't be free.) I
think that maintaining this would require the extra labor of someone more
familiar with the world of plugins... :)
Richard
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
