Excelelnt thanks! | -----Original Message----- | From: Manuel M T Chakravarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 11 May 2007 12:51 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: [email protected] | Subject: Re: patch applied (ghc): isDataTyCon should be False for all type families, even data type | families | | Simon, | | > I think we are agreed that you hold the token on this, and on | http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1331 | | Done. | | > - add words to Section 4 of this same page, saying that it's a draft | user-manual entry | | Done. | | I still have to update the wiki docs and modify the manual as agreed. | After that I'll change tcLookupFamInst as agreed (but that won't be today). | | Manuel | | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Peyton- | Jones | > | Sent: 07 May 2007 11:44 | > | To: Manuel M T Chakravarty | > | Cc: [email protected] | > | Subject: RE: patch applied (ghc): isDataTyCon should be False for all type families, even data | type | > | families | > | | > | | "isAlgTyCon" doesn't do). Roman, raised the question of whether we | > | | actually would want to permit newtype instances for data families (or in | > | | other words whether it makes sense to distinguish between data families | > | | and newtype families at all - it surely makes sense to distinguish | > | | between data instances and newtype instances, though). What do you | > | | think? | > | | > | Indeed! It makes no sense to have newtype families. Let's just have | > | | > | data family T ... | > | type family T ... | > | | > | but not | > | | > | newtype family ... | > | | > | For a data family T, you can say | > | | > | data instance T ... | > | or | > | newtype instance T... | > | | > | Will you do this or shall I? We need to write the user manual stuff too. | > | | > | Simon
_______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
