On 01/09/2011 18:02, Evan Laforge wrote:
It's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. There would have to be
an atomic file system operation to commit a compiled module - getting that
right could be a bit tricky (compilation isn't deterministic, so the commit
has to be atomic).
I
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 02.09.2011, 09:07 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow:
On 01/09/2011 18:02, Evan Laforge wrote:
It's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. There would have to be
an atomic file system operation to commit a compiled module - getting
that
right could be a bit tricky
Hi,
On 31 August 2011 12:22, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org wrote:
I become perplexed very easily. I think we should warn whenever silent
pre-emption (rather than explicit) hiding is used to suppress a default
instance, because it is bad --- it makes the meaning of an instance
Hi
On 2 Sep 2011, at 10:55, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
On 31 August 2011 12:22, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
wrote:
I become perplexed very easily. I think we should warn whenever
silent
pre-emption (rather than explicit) hiding is used to suppress a
default
instance,
I hope I am misunderstanding this
2011/9/2 Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
Also, if I understand you correctly, you say the current situation is
exceptional, and suggest option 2 as a temporary solution to it. You
seem convinced that these kind of situations will not appear in
The question then comes down to whether that warning should ever be
strengthened to an error.
Indeed.
I agree that such a scenario is possible. The present situation gives
no choice but to do things badly, but things often get done badly the
first time around anyway. Perhaps I'm just
Hi
On 2 Sep 2011, at 16:34, Brandon Allbery wrote:
I hope I am misunderstanding this
I wrote:
I agree that such a scenario is possible. The present situation gives
no choice but to do things badly, but things often get done badly the
first time around anyway. Perhaps I'm just grumpy,
On 2 Sep 2011, at 18:19, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
I agree. Option 2 FTW :)
The recent discussion concerns whether option 2 should eventually be
shifted to option 1. Everyone seems to agree that option 2 should be
used initially.
A similar warning should perhaps indicate that a hiding
Too many words! I'm losing track. What I'm proposing is Option 2 under The
design of the opt-out mechanism on
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DefaultSuperclassInstances
I believe that meets everyone's goals:
* A warning encourages you to fix the client code
* But you can turn it
I agree. Option 2 FTW :)
The recent discussion concerns whether option 2 should eventually be
shifted to option 1. Everyone seems to agree that option 2 should be
used initially.
Regards,
Jonas
On 2 September 2011 18:55, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Too many words! I'm
10 matches
Mail list logo