Chris Smith <cdsm...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > >> In my mind the fundamental problem with this approach is that it means >> that a program's acceptance by the compiler hinges upon pragmas. >> This is a rather significant departure from the status quo, where one >> can remove all pragmas and still end up with a well-formed program. >> In this sense, pragmas aren't really part of the Haskell language but >> are rather bits of interesting metadata that the compiler may or may not >> pay heed to. >> > > I don't believe this is really the status quo. In particular, the pragmas > relating to overlapping instances definitely do affect whether a program > type-checks or not.
Yes, this is a fair point. Moreover, the same can be said of LANGUAGE pragmas more generally. I will rephrase my statement to reflect what was in my head when I initially wrote it: >> In my mind the fundamental problem with this approach is that it means >> that a program's acceptance by the compiler hinges upon INLINE pragmas. >> This is a rather significant departure from the status quo, where one >> can remove all INLINE, INLINEABLE, RULES, and SPECIALISE pragmas and >> still end up with a well-formed program. These pragmas all share the property that they don't change program semantics but rather merely affect operational behavior. Consequently, they should not change whether a program should be accepted. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
