Hello John,
Here are some prior discussions (which I will attempt to summarize
below):
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2011-May/091878.html
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2006-April/001237.html
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2006-March/001
| given `(f a ~ g b)` there's no possible way that `a` and `b`, resp. `f`
| and `g` might have different kinds (how could you ever have constructed
| `f a ~ g b` if they did?)
Wait. It's quite possible for them to have different kinds. E.g.
f :: (* -> *) -> *
a :: (* -> *)
g :: * -> *
b :: *
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | given `(f a ~ g b)` there's no possible way that `a` and `b`, resp. `f`
> | and `g` might have different kinds (how could you ever have constructed
> | `f a ~ g b` if they did?)
>
> Wait. It's quite possible for them to have different
Hi Edward,
Thanks very much for this reply, it answers a lot of questions I'd had.
I'd hoped that ordering would be preserved through C--, but c'est la vie.
Optimizing compilers are ever the bane of concurrent algorithms!
stg/SMP.h does define a loadLoadBarrier, which is exposed in Ryan Newton'
