Feel free to propose better solutions.
The underlying issue is that before type checking GHC (obviously) doesn't know
the types of things, while afterwards it does. The whole HsSyn tree is
parameterised over the types of identifiers:
Parsed: HsExpr RdrNames
Renamed: HsExpr Name
Johan Tibell writes:
As part of GHC releases users also get a bunch of libraries. These
libraries (e.g. array-0.3.0.3 in the last release) aren't uploaded on
Hackage.
They have been in the past, by either Ian or me, but it seems a few
were missed for 7.2.1.
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
Feel free to propose better solutions.
I see the problem, but it's indeed not clear how to improve the current
situation.
Adding one more possible solution: SYB, as it is, will traverse the entire
data
This is interesting.
I think using a slightly different notation would avoid confusion with
matching on tuples. Why not just write
docase a,b,c of
instead of
docase (a,b,c) of
?
Sebastian
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Tomas Petricek
tomas.petri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,!
at
On 26 August 2011 09:22, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
The underlying issue is that before type checking GHC (obviously) doesn't
know the types of things, while afterwards it does. The whole HsSyn tree is
parameterised over the types of identifiers:
Parsed: HsExpr
Yep, I've been thinking about that. It could work, but I don't know
how type functions interact with SYB.
It doesn't solve the issue of having traversals with different
semantics, though. I.e., sometimes you want to look inside
SyntaxExpr, sometimes you don't. ATM, you have to customise the
Thanks for the feedback -
Someone already suggested this syntactic change at Hackathon and the GHC patch
implements this syntax :-) (see e.g. the snippet at
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5429). The paper used a
parenthesized tuple syntax, so earlier examples use that (however, in
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Terei davidte...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a 16 core machine at work (with 48GB of ram, a perk of the job
:)). GHC can saturate them all. Can validate GHC in well under 10
minutes on it.
To wander a bit from the topic, when I first saw this I thought wow,
From: Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: GHC build times on newer MacBook Pros?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Terei davidte...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a 16 core machine at work (with 48GB of ram, a perk of the job
:)). GHC can
