Right, as it says in title "error in ghci calling main after loading
compiled code"
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, GHC wrote:
> #10053: Regression on MacOS platform, error in ghci calling main after
> loading
> compiled code: "Too late for parseStaticFlags..."
> ---
At present, any time we write a function with a `Coercible`
constraint, we must take great care to choose `Coercible a b` or
`Coercible b a` depending on which will ultimately lead to fewer silly
conversions. This is particularly sad because the whole Coercible
mechanism guarantees that these have
The Coercible solver has evolved steadily. It should know that (Coercible a b
<=> Coercible b a). Do you have a concrete example of where it's not doing
this? Have you tested against HEAD?
Thanks,
Richard
On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:56 AM, David Feuer wrote:
> At present, any time we write a functi
No, I've not tested against head. I'd not heard anything new about
that! That sounds exciting. Sorry about the noise if it's all finished
already.
David
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> The Coercible solver has evolved steadily. It should know that (Coercible a b
> <=
I’ve forgotten the state of your type-level error messages work. How’s it
going?
I think we should try to add it to 8.0.1. The current status is that the idea
is implemented on a branch. Then, there were some comments and suggestions
that maybe we should do things in a different way, implemen
Scratch that, I managed to reproduced. (As you said, it occurs only when
you do the bindist.) I'll debug.
Edward
Excerpts from Gabor Greif's message of 2015-10-21 23:47:37 -0700:
> I did not use an inplace-stage2 but had a 'make install' before and
> did a boot/reconfigure.
>
> Not sure whether
Phab here: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D1355
Excerpts from Edward Z. Yang's message of 2015-10-22 13:09:25 -0700:
> Scratch that, I managed to reproduced. (As you said, it occurs only when
> you do the bindist.) I'll debug.
>
> Edward
>
> Excerpts from Gabor Greif's message of 2015-10-21 23
I think, this is a good point. Maybe you should make a ticket for it.
Manuel
> David Feuer :
>
> Unless something has changed really recently that I've missed, the typed
> holes messages are missing some really important information: instance
> information for types in scope. When I am trying
Hi.
On Oct 23, 2015 01:15, "Manuel M T Chakravarty"
wrote:
>
> I think, this is a good point. Maybe you should make a ticket for it.
#9479, I think.
Cheers,
Andres
>> David Feuer :
>>
>> Unless something has changed really recently that I've missed, the typed
holes messages are missing some re
It's not just you. That's why I didn't mention holes in the book as people
suggested. It's not just confusing for new people - it drives me nuts every
time I use a hole in non-trivial code at work.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:25 PM, David Feuer wrote:
> Unless something has changed really recently
I opened https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10954 for this. #9479, by
Dominique Devriese, is complementary--she wants instance information for a
*hole* with an ambiguous type.
On Oct 23, 2015 1:28 AM, "Andres Löh" wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Oct 23, 2015 01:15, "Manuel M T Chakravarty"
> wrote:
> >
Actually, #9091 was the one I was really looking for ... reported by
me. See also the discussion about "given" vs. "wanted" constraints.
Cheers,
Andres
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, David Feuer wrote:
> I opened https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10954 for this. #9479, by
> Dominique D
I just closed mine as a duplicate of yours.
On Oct 23, 2015 1:55 AM, "Andres Löh" wrote:
> Actually, #9091 was the one I was really looking for ... reported by
> me. See also the discussion about "given" vs. "wanted" constraints.
>
> Cheers,
> Andres
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, David F
13 matches
Mail list logo
