I rebased the ORF work (fixing a minor merge by hand) and it is now available in GHC and Haddock under the 'orf' branches. Do feel free to give them a try.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/21/2014 03:12 PM, Austin Seipp wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> As some of you might have seen last week, my colleague Adam took the >> time to get his OverloadedRecordFields back up to date with regards to >> HEAD. >> >> I'm now wondering: when should we pull the trigger? I am inclined to >> say 'soon'. In particular, the ORF changes are rather large, and Adam >> has hinted to me it touches a lot of components of e.g. name >> resolution. A large change with some fairly big impacts, in other >> words. >> >> I think it is perhaps best to merge soon - so that it does not get out >> of date and cause undue burden to Adam, but also so that we have >> maximal amounts of time to sort out issues in the long haul that it >> might expose. >> >> Simon - I believe you reviewed Adam's work in the past, yes? I am >> wondering what you think we should do here. I am more than willing to >> defer to you and let you do the merge after another review. On the >> other hand, if you already did review it and feel confident after a >> look or two, I'm more than willing to take over sometime this week. >> >> Adam - since you emailed us last week, Herbert went ahead and merged >> 'base' into GHC's repository. This does not invalidate the changes you >> gave us, it just means the two commits can be collapsed into one. >> Also, the performance failures seem like minor anomalies, but I have >> not yet directly built the ORF branch to confirm this. You're free to >> rebase yourself, or I can likely handle it without much issue soon. >> >> If anyone else has opinions here - please speak up, I'm all ears. >> >> For those reading, Adam's implementation is available in current form here: >> >> - https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc >> - https://github.com/adamgundry/packages-base >> - https://github.com/adamgundry/haddock >> > > I see a change to the Haddock interface file but the interface file > version was not bumped (top of the file) which means that Haddock will > try to read old interface file versions which will fail (I think). I > would try myself but my system currently isn't really in appropriate > state, perhaps I manage to do so later. It'd be great if we could > default that to empty Map if we can't read it in but I don't think we > can do that with existing binary (but we should be able to with the > future CBOR stuff). > > Other than that, the Haddock patch looks good but again, I can not try > it myself at the moment. > > I have to say I'm quite excited for overloaded records. > > -- > Mateusz K. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > -- Regards, Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
