2021 21:34
> To: Simon Peyton Jones
> Cc: Krzysztof Gogolewski ; Spiwack, Arnaud
> ; GHC developers ; Ryan Scott
>
> Subject: Re: magicDict
>
> I like withDict a lot. It is direct, easy to chain/use, avoids fighting about
> direction completely, and even matches the arg
You mean you like 'withDict' with that name, as well as the argument order K
suggests? i.e. not reifyDict?
Simon
From: Edward Kmett
Sent: 26 April 2021 21:34
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Krzysztof Gogolewski ; Spiwack, Arnaud
; GHC developers ; Ryan Scott
Subject: Re: magicDi
t: 26 April 2021 15:35
> | To: Simon Peyton Jones
> | Cc: Spiwack, Arnaud ; Edward Kmett
> | ; GHC developers
> | Subject: Re: magicDict
> |
> | I would like to propose one more option:
> |
> | withDict :: dt -> (ct => a) -> a
> |
> | 1. This is less symm
ril 2021 15:35
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: Spiwack, Arnaud ; Edward Kmett
| ; GHC developers
| Subject: Re: magicDict
|
| I would like to propose one more option:
|
| withDict :: dt -> (ct => a) -> a
|
| 1. This is less symmetric than '(ct => a) -> dt ->
>
>
>
> From: Spiwack, Arnaud
> Sent: 26 April 2021 08:10
> To: Edward Kmett
> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones ; GHC developers
>
> Subject: Re: magicDict
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 2:20 AM Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> I speak to much this sa
tter than 'magicDict'.
So: reifyDict it is?
Simon
From: Spiwack, Arnaud
Sent: 26 April 2021 08:10
To: Edward Kmett
Cc: Simon Peyton Jones ; GHC developers
Subject: Re: magicDict
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 2:20 AM Edward Kmett
mailto:ekm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I speak to mu
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 2:20 AM Edward Kmett wrote:
> I speak to much this same point in this old stack overflow response,
> though to exactly the opposite conclusion, and to exactly the opposite pet
> peeve.
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/5316014/34707
>
:-)
I do not feel that I chose the voc
I speak to much this same point in this old stack overflow response, though
to exactly the opposite conclusion, and to exactly the opposite pet peeve.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5316014/34707
Let me see if I can try to explain why I think reasonable people can
disagree here and why I ultimately
This makes sense to me, and provides a good explanation for why I mix up
the terms.
So usual parlance is reify brings stuff back down/ reflect bounces it up?
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:16 AM Spiwack, Arnaud
wrote:
> While I do value consistency, let me pet-peeve for a minute here (sorry in
> ad
While I do value consistency, let me pet-peeve for a minute here (sorry in
advance Edward for the rant). The word “reify” comes from the latin “res”,
which means object/thing. It should always mean something along the line of
“making more concrete”. In normalisation by evaluation, for instance, you
Ah, yes... I can never remember which is reify and which is reflect. I'm fine
either way. Maybe reifyDict is better.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: Krzysztof Gogolewski
| Sent: 22 April 2021 20:18
| To: Spiwack, Arnaud
| Cc: Simon Peyton Jones ; GHC developers
| Subjec
Happy to see progress being made here. I think Ryan and others have spoken
to any issues I would otherwise raise with the implementation itself.
Currently I find myself reaching for unsafeCoerce over magicDict in most
situations, and I'd really like to be able to stop doing that!
I'm +1 on the nam
How about 'reifyDict'? The reflection library uses 'reify' to create a
dictionary and 'reflect' to extract a value out of it.
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/reflection-2.1.6/docs/Data-Reflection.html#v:reify
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:27 PM Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:
>
> Let me upvote `reflectDi
Let me upvote `reflectDict`.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:41 PM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <
ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:
> Ed, and other ghc-devs
>
> We are busy tidying up magicDict, and making it much more type-safe: see
>
>- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/16646
>- http
14 matches
Mail list logo
