Re: Missing definitions of associated types

2016-02-18 Thread David Feuer
You make a good point about people who use overlapping instances deserving whatever they get (I'd personally love to see that whole mess removed and replaced with something less intrusive). The bit that most severely breaks my intuition here is that under normal, well-behaved circumstances, every i

RE: Build failures with -DDEBUG

2016-02-18 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
Very helpful thanks. TcCoercibleFail is known to time out (for decent reasons) with –DDEBUG (see comments in the dsource file) I’l look into the PatSyn thing Simon From: Thomas Miedema [mailto:thomasmied...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 February 2016 18:41 To: Simon Peyton Jones ; ghc-devs@haskell.org S

Build failures with -DDEBUG

2016-02-18 Thread Thomas Miedema
Simon, the commits you pushed today don't validate with -DDEBUG. Unexpected failures: patsyn/should_compile MoreEx [exit code non-0] (normal) patsyn/should_compile T11224b [exit code non-0] (normal) polykinds MonoidsTF [exit code non-0] (normal) polykinds

Re: Missing definitions of associated types

2016-02-18 Thread Reid Barton
Well, I see your point; but you also can't define a On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:00 PM, David Feuer wrote: > It seems to be that a missing associated type definition should be an > error, by default, rather than a warning. The current behavior under those > circumstances strikes me as very strange

Missing definitions of associated types

2016-02-18 Thread David Feuer
It seems to be that a missing associated type definition should be an error, by default, rather than a warning. The current behavior under those circumstances strikes me as very strange, particularly for data families and particularly in the presence of overlapping. {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-} c

RE: Fwd: Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?

2016-02-18 Thread Andrey Mokhov
Thomas Tuegel writes: > I think what Andrey meant was, the first time we run the pre-processors, > cache the locations of all the files that need to be pre-processed. On > subsequent runs, we only need to check pre-processors the files in the cache. Yes, something along the lines. Although I don

Re: Fwd: Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?

2016-02-18 Thread Thomas Tuegel
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > On 2016-02-18 at 13:32:59 +0100, Andrey Mokhov wrote: >> Interesting! In the new Shake-based build system we also need to >> automagically generate .hs files using Alex et al. My first >> implementation was slow but then I realised t

Re: New type of ($) operator in GHC 8.0 is problematic

2016-02-18 Thread Takenobu Tani
Hi, I know the issue of beginner's Prelude. But how about "profile"? (like H264/MPEG4-AVC profile [1]) * Beginner Profile : beginner's Prelude or ghci beginner's representation mode * Main Profile : Haskell 2010 standard * Leading edge Profile : set of GHC extensions If be

Re: New type of ($) operator in GHC 8.0 is problematic

2016-02-18 Thread Takenobu Tani
Hi Manuel, > I do worry about the same thing. The Haskell ecosystem is very much geared towards experts and tinkerers (with laudable exceptions, such as, for example, the great work done by Chris Allen). Being an expert and tinkerer that didn’t worry me too much, but lately I am trying to make fun

Re: Fwd: Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?

2016-02-18 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2016-02-18 at 13:32:59 +0100, Andrey Mokhov wrote: [...] > Interesting! In the new Shake-based build system we also need to > automagically generate .hs files using Alex et al. My first > implementation was slow but then I realised that it is possible to > scan the source tree only once and re

Re: Fwd: Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?

2016-02-18 Thread Andrey Mokhov
Thomas Tuegel writes: > > What exactly does the pre-process phase do, anyways? > It runs the appropriate pre-processor (Alex, Happy, c2hs, etc.) for modules > that require it. It's slow because of the way the process is carried out: For > each module in the package description, Cabal tries to fi

Strict Haskell

2016-02-18 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
Johan Consider this with -XStrict f y = let Just x = blah[y] in body[y,x] Suppose that in a call to f, · blah returns Nothing · but body does not use x Should f succeed? For sure, blah will be evaluated to HNF before body is started, but is the match against Just done strictly