Would this allow having a strict monoid instance for maybe, given the right
hinting at the use site?
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Edward Kmett wrote:
> I think ultimately the two views of levity that we've been talking diverge
> along the same lines as the pi vs forall discussion from your L
On 10/09/2015 10:41, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
| > The awkward spot is the runtime system. Currently it goes to some
| > lengths to ensure that it never introduces an indirection for a
| > boxed-but-unlifted type. Simon Marlow would know exactly where. So
|
| I *think* we're ok here. The
How about ghc-datatypes?
ghc-core-data seems like it would have something to do with the Core
language and ghc-integration sounds like it is a layer on top of ghc.
Using the -types suffix has quite som precedence [1] for packages
defining shared datatypes (as does the -core suffix), but given Mal
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:28 AM, malcolm.wallace
wrote:
> "ghc-types" sounds like a package for fancy type hackery. I would never
> think to find language extension flags in such a place. How about
> "ghc-package-db", or "ghc-language-extensions"?
>
ghc-integration
ghc-core-data
--
brandon s
I'll give that a try. The main use of the stg types in the stg-to-cmm pass
is to call idPrimRep (which call typePrimRep) to figure out which register
type we need to use. I guess as long as I rewrite the stg types so they
give me the typePrimRep I want in the end I should be fine.
On Thu, Sep 10,
Some people had asked what the users want and about typical usage, so I'll
give the my perspective. I consider myself a pretty typical user of
Haskell: PhD student (in theory, not languages), but still pushing the
boundaries of the compiler. I've filed quite a few bugs, so I have
experience with ha
These observations from Ed and Dan are quite helpful. Could one of you put them
on the wiki page? I hadn't considered the possibility of truly parametric
levity polymorphism.
Thanks!
Richard
On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> I think ultimately the two views of levity that we'v
| > The awkward spot is the runtime system. Currently it goes to some
| > lengths to ensure that it never introduces an indirection for a
| > boxed-but-unlifted type. Simon Marlow would know exactly where. So
|
| I *think* we're ok here. The RTS doesn't have any special machinery
| to av
The problem is that stg is too strongly typed
It’s not really typed, or at least only in a very half-hearted way. To be
concrete I think you can just use Any for any Pointer arg. All STG needs to
know, really, is which things are pointers. Detailed type info like “are you a
Char or a Bool”
"ghc-types" sounds like a package for fancy type hackery. I would never think to find language
extension flags in such a place. How about "ghc-package-db", or
"ghc-language-extensions"?
Regards,
Malcolm
On 10 Sep, 2015,at 03:30 AM, "Edward Z. Yang" wrote:
I don't think it makes very much
10 matches
Mail list logo
