RE: RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

2014-11-08 Thread Tamar Christina
I don't think we should worry about windows server 2003. Unless I'm mistaken the support Microsoft still provides is mostly maintenance. The older version of GHC won't suddenly stop working on 2003, as such all programs will continue to run just fine. From a development standpoint removing = NT 5

let/app invariant violated by code generated with mkCoreApp

2014-11-08 Thread Dr. ERDI Gergo
Hi, I'm trying to attach (f Void#) as a compulsory unfolding to an Id. Here's what I tried originally: let unfolding = mkCoreApp (Var worker_id) (Var voidPrimId) wrapper_id' = setIdUnfolding wrapper_id $ mkCompulsoryUnfolding unfolding However, when I try to use wrapper_id' in

RE: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Dr. ERDI Gergo
Just a small note about parsing: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: The more I think about this, the more I think we'll just have to bite the bullet and adapt the syntax for constraints in pattern types, to distinguish the match-required and match-provided parts. Suppose we let

Fw: Long term support - in general and Windows XP specifically

2014-11-08 Thread Howard B. Golden
Hi, I am combining the two topics because the issues are both support-related. First, long term support (LTS) is an important goal in making GHC/Haskell a viable production platform. I would argue that providing it is a necessary condition to encourage more adoption of Haskell by plain users

Re: Wiki: special namespace for proposals?

2014-11-08 Thread Simon Marlow
On 15/10/14 09:37, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: I think that would be a fine idea, but it's always hard - pages change their status (a proposal becomes part of GHC) - a page may belong in multiple places - people keep URLs in bookmarks, and they are linked from other pages in Trac so moving

Question about `validate` workflow

2014-11-08 Thread Iavor Diatchki
Hello, I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However, every time something goes wrong (e.g., unused import warning), the whole process starts from the beginning, which is quite time consuming. I am

Re: Question about `validate` workflow

2014-11-08 Thread Thomas Miedema
I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However, every time something goes wrong (e.g., unused import warning), the whole process starts from the beginning, which is quite time consuming. $

Re: Fw: Long term support - in general and Windows XP specifically

2014-11-08 Thread Mateusz Kowalczyk
On 11/08/2014 07:32 PM, Howard B. Golden wrote: Hi, I am combining the two topics because the issues are both support-related. First, long term support (LTS) is an important goal in making GHC/Haskell a viable production platform. I would argue that providing it is a necessary

Re: 7.10 STABLE freeze date

2014-11-08 Thread Luke Iannini
Hello, I've submitted a patch to finish the already-merged (but incomplete) ARM64 support that adds support for modern iOS devices https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7942 Best Luke (I've also submitted a patch to LLVM to add an ARM64 GHC calling convention that is in review) On Fri, Nov

Re: Question about `validate` workflow

2014-11-08 Thread Edward Z. Yang
It does work, and it's very useful. Edward Excerpts from Thomas Miedema's message of 2014-11-08 14:35:27 -0800: I was wondering how do other devs `validate` their tree? In particular, I just merged a whole bunch of stuff and am validating things. However, every time something goes

Re: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Richard Eisenberg
On Nov 8, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote: So we would need to add a way of parsing (T1, T2, ..., Tn; U1, U2, ..., Um) into a type, which would then require rejecting everywhere else where we really do mean a type... Sounds painful. Also painful: rewriting the whole

Re: Question about `validate` workflow

2014-11-08 Thread Richard Eisenberg
I've stopped validating locally, allowing Travis to do it for me. If you use a `wip/...` branch and push to the main GHC repo, you can find build reports at travis-ci.org/ghc/ghc. Or, I'm sure if you clue Travis in, this can also work if you push to your own GitHub fork of GHC. Admittedly,

Re: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Dr. ERDI Gergo
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote: On Nov 8, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote: So we would need to add a way of parsing (T1, T2, ..., Tn; U1, U2, ..., Um) into a type, which would then require rejecting everywhere else where we really do mean a type... Sounds

Re: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Richard Eisenberg
On Nov 8, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Dr. ERDI Gergo ge...@erdi.hu wrote: Right, but the issue in this case is if we add this artifical constructor to HsType just so we can fix it up into a pair of contexts, this constructor would permeate everything else that has to do with HsTypes; if nothing

Re: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Dr. ERDI Gergo
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote: I should also note that I intended the `forall`s to be optional. Of course, the forall binders are optional in all proposals. ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org

Re: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Isaac Dupree
On 11/04/2014 05:32 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: The ; match-required part is optional, and the match-provided part might be empty. So P1 and P2 would look like this: pattern P1 :: forall a. (; Num a) = b - (a,b) pattern P2 :: forall a. (; Num a, Ord a) = a - a How about marking the

Re: Fw: Long term support - in general and Windows XP specifically

2014-11-08 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2014-11-08 at 20:32:17 +0100, Howard B. Golden wrote: [...] I am an interested observer, not an active developer, so take my comments with this in mind. I wonder if the release of 7.10 is being rushed. Perhaps once a year releases are too frequent for everyone except the bleeding edge,

RE: Concrete syntax for pattern synonym type signatures

2014-11-08 Thread Dr. ERDI Gergo
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: pattern P :: forall tvs. (match-provided ; match-required) = tau The ; match-required part is optional, and the match-provided part might be empty. So P1 and P2 would look like this: pattern P1 :: forall a. (; Num a) = b - (a,b) pattern P2 ::