Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Ben Gamari writes: > tl;dr. Provisional release schedule for 9.2 enclosed. Please discuss, >especially if you have something you would like merged for 9.2.1. > > Hello all, > Hi all, With the planned fork deadline looming, I thought now would be a good time for a bit of a status update.

RE: Plan for GHC 9.2

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes: > Ben > > Can we get record dot syntax into 9.2? > > * Shayne is really nearly there in !4532; he has been working > hard and recently. Yes, Shayne asked about this last week; I updated the milestone and added it to the milestone highlights [1]. > * It

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

[Re-sending from the correct address, apologies!] It would be great to get RecordDotSyntax for selection into 9.2. As I just commented on !4532 [1] there's one awkward point to resolve, which is that 9.2 will probably not have `setField`, on which RecordDotSyntax updates depend. Cheers, Adam [

RE: Plan for GHC 9.2

Ben Can we get record dot syntax into 9.2? * Shayne is really nearly there in !4532; he has been working hard and recently. * It depends on my !4981 (was 4722) which fixes some bugs and I'm keen to commit. So, is it ok in principle to pull to trigger on !4981, and hopefully !4532? Simon |

RE: Plan for GHC 9.2

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes: > Yes I agree, unlifted data types would be terrific. > > From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Sebastian Graf > Sent: 11 February 2021 10:25 > To: Ben Gamari > Cc: ghc-devs > Subject: Re: Plan for GHC 9.2 > > Hi, > > Since my ho

RE: Plan for GHC 9.2

Yes I agree, unlifted data types would be terrific. From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Sebastian Graf Sent: 11 February 2021 10:25 To: Ben Gamari Cc: ghc-devs Subject: Re: Plan for GHC 9.2 Hi, Since my hopes of finally merging Nested CPR have recently been crushed again, I hope that we can include

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Hi, Since my hopes of finally merging Nested CPR have recently been crushed again, I hope that we can include the implementation of the UnliftedDatatypes extension (proposal , implementation

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Roland Senn writes: > I hope ticket #19157 will make it in the GHC 9.2 release. In the GHCi > debugger it adds the possibility to set ignore counts to breakpoints. > The next times the break point is reached the program's > execution does not stop. This feature is available in nearly every > deb

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

I hope ticket #19157 will make it in the GHC 9.2 release. In the GHCi debugger it adds the possibility to set ignore counts to breakpoints. The next times the break point is reached the program's execution does not stop. This feature is available in nearly every debugger, but until now not yet in

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

My patch adding `-finfo-table-map` and `-fdistinct-constructor-tables` is ready to review and should be included in 9.2. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3469 There are also a one outstanding patches related to ghc-debug. (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4583

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Hey Ben, It would be excellent to get NoFieldSelectors extension (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/4743) in. IIUC it's almost ready to be merged. ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailm

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2021, 13:56 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: > If you see something that you would like to see in 9.2.1 please do > holler. it’s hopefully not big deal technically, but support for GHC2021 would be desirable. There is a MR https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests

Re: Plan for GHC 9.2

Hi Ben, Since part of the changes of https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/14422 are already merged into master (e.g. we ignore the "type signature" part of a COMPLETE sig now, because there is nothing to disambiguate), it would be good if we merged the solution outlined in https://gitlab.ha