(Trac reports "database locked", posting here...)
Here's unsafeCoerce:
> type family Const a
> type instance Const a = ()
>
> data T a where T :: a -> T (Const a)
>
> coerce :: forall a b . a -> b
> coerce x = case T x :: T (Const b) of
>T y -> y
And this indeed "works"... Here's t
Roberto Zunino wrote:
(Trac reports "database locked", posting here...)
For those interested, here are the follow-ups:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1723
Regards,
Zun.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell
Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2007 15:27 schrieb Roberto Zunino:
> Roberto Zunino wrote:
> > (Trac reports "database locked", posting here...)
>
> For those interested, here are the follow-ups:
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1723
>
> Regards,
> Zun.
simonpj writes there:
> Manuel is
|
| simonpj writes there:
| > Manuel is about to nuke the old GADT stuff in favour of the new type-
| family
| > stuff.
|
| This doesn’t mean that GADTs are being dropped in favor of type
| families, does
| it?
|
No... it's an implementation matter only, invisible to programmers
Simon
___
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:59:49PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2007 15:27 schrieb Roberto Zunino:
> > Roberto Zunino wrote:
> > > (Trac reports "database locked", posting here...)
> >
> > For those interested, here are the follow-ups:
> >
> > http://hackage.haskell
(Simon, does this mean
that non-~ discharging will become subject to GADT-style type annotation
rules?)
No, it does not. No type annotations required in non-GADT-related code,
even if equalities are involved.
Tom
--
Tom Schrijvers
Department of Computer Science
K.U. Leuven
Celestijnenlaan 2
Hello Stefan,
Friday, September 28, 2007, 1:10:09 AM, you wrote:
> data Foo a where
>A :: Foo Int
>B :: Foo Bool
> becomes
> data Foo a = (a ~ Int) => A | (a ~ Bool) => B
hm :) this looks like my quasi-proposal of unifying data and function
definitions still has some meaning. i propos
