in 'containers'; we don't need an actual release.
Over to you, Austin
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Milan Straka [mailto:f...@ucw.cz]
| Sent: 10 January 2015 13:45
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org; Johan Tibell
| Subject: Re: Redundant constraints
|
| Hi Simon
| I've fixed some of the warnings in transformers, but there are still
| 14 of them, triggered by Applicative becoming a superclass of Monad.
In GHC's own source code I did this
#if __GLASGOW_HASKELL__ 710
-- Pre-AMP change
runGhcT :: (ExceptionMonad m, Functor m) =
#else
runGhcT ::
: Re: Redundant constraints
2015-01-07 18:19 GMT+03:00 Simon Peyton Jones
simo...@microsoft.commailto:simo...@microsoft.com:
Friends
I’ve pushed a big patch that adds –fwarn-redundant-constraints (on by default).
It tells you when a constraint in a signature is unnecessary, e.g.
f :: Ord
: Redundant constraints
|
| One option for avoiding the warning without runtime overhead would be
| to do something like this:
|
|f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
| f x y = True
| where
| _ = x y
|
|
| On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:19:15PM +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
I’ve pushed a big patch that adds –fwarn-redundant-constraints (on by
default). It tells you when a constraint in a signature is unnecessary, e.g.
f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
f x y = True
I think I have done
2015-01-07 18:19 GMT+03:00 Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
Friends
I’ve pushed a big patch that adds –fwarn-redundant-constraints (on by
default). It tells you when a constraint in a signature is unnecessary,
e.g.
f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
f x y = True
I think I
One option for avoiding the warning without runtime overhead would be
to do something like this:
 f :: Ord a = a - a - Bool
f x y = True
where
_ = x y
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this probably makes sense,
I think this probably makes sense, especially since you can silence the
warning when you intend to add an unnecessary constraint.
I had one thought though: consider an abstract data type with functions
that operates over it. I might want to require e.g Ord in the definition of
a function so I
; Ross Paterson
Subject: Re: Redundant constraints
I think this probably makes sense, especially since you can silence the warning
when you intend to add an unnecessary constraint.
I had one thought though: consider an abstract data type with functions that
operates over it. I might want to require
