On 19 August 2011 17:15, Jens Petersen wrote:
>> I have done a test build of 7.2.1 for Fedora [17]:
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3267317
Since the test rpms are now gone from Koji and I don't think
I will start building 7.2 properly for Fedora until after ICFP
I have plac
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of support for Option 3... but what about Option 2
> (ie pre-empt but give a warning)?
I notice that the idea to only issue a warning if the explicit and
implicit instances are in different modules was already h
On 30/08/2011 00:42, Thomas Schilling wrote:
The performance problem was due to the use of unsafePerformIO or other
thunk-locking functions. The problem was that such functions can
cause severe performance problems when using a deep stack. The
problem is that these functions need to traverse th
Hi
Sorry to be late again...I'm trying to have what's laughably described
as a holiday, but it seems more like the common cold to me.
On 31 Aug 2011, at 08:52, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
| > There seems to be a lot of support for Option 3... but what about
Option 2 (ie pre-empt but give a
| > There seems to be a lot of support for Option 3... but what about
Option 2 (ie pre-empt but give a warning)?
I think option 2 sounds very good. Possibly with the exception of only
warning when the manual instance is in another module, since you will
never experience the "perplexity" described
On 31 August 2011 01:11, Bas van Dijk wrote:
> So it seems like a bug in GHC. I will create a ticket in the morning.
Ticket created: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5443
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.or
| > Won't option 1 "Reject this as a duplicate instance declaration, which
| > indeed it is." conflict with design goal 1: "a class C can be
| > re-factored into a class C with a superclass S, without disturbing any
| > clients"?
Yes, option 1 does conflict with design goal 1; good point. Ther
