: Alan & Kim Zimmerman <alan.z...@gmail.com>; ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: Discussion: Static Safety via Distinct Interfaces for HsSyn ASTs
(1)-(3) appears to be three different approaches, but I don’t think that’s what
you intend. I think there are only two: add the indirection layer
two: add the indirection layer or
> not?
>
>
>
> S
>
>
>
> *From:* Shayan Najd [mailto:sh.n...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 August 2017 13:26
> *To:* ghc-devs@haskell.org
> *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; Alan & Kim Zimmerman <
> alan.
intend. I think there are only two: add the indirection layer or not?
S
From: Shayan Najd [mailto:sh.n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 23 August 2017 13:26
To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Cc: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; Alan & Kim Zimmerman
<alan.z...@gmail.com>
Subject: Discussion: S
In this thread, I am going to raise a topic for discussion. Please share
your opinions and related experiences.
Evaluation of type families within HsSyn ASTs, such as `PostTc`, with a
fixed phase index, such as `GhcPs`, gives us distinct ASTs at the
*compile-time*.
However, when programming with
