I agree with Johan although my Z is different and will be left unspecifed :). In the meantime we should get out bindists for RC2 for all platforms that we intend to do so.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think delaying is OK, but we should probably say something like "we're > delaying for X and Y, but that doesn't mean that you can not sneak in Z*". > > * Unless Z is the StrictData language pragma and your name is Johan. ;) > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com > > wrote: > >> Friends >> >> In a call with a bunch of type hackers, we were discussing >> >> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9858 >> >> This is a pretty serious bug. It allows a malicious person to construct >> his own unsafeCoerce, and so completely subverts Safe Haskell. >> >> Actually there are two bugs (see comment:19). The first is easily >> fixed. But the second is not. >> >> We explored various quick fixes, but the real solution is not far out of >> reach. It amounts to this: >> >> · Every data type is automatically in Typeable. No need to say >> “deriving(Typeable)” or “AutoDeriveTypeable” (which would become deprecated) >> >> · In implementation terms, the constraint solver treats Typeable >> specially, much as it already treats Coercible specially. >> >> It’s not a huge job. It’d probably take a couple of days of >> implementation work, and some time for shaking out bugs and consequential >> changes. The biggest thing might be simply working out implementation >> design choices. (For example, there is a modest code-size cost to making >> everything Typeable, esp because that includes the data constructors of the >> type (which can be used in types, with DataKinds). Does that matter? >> Should we provide a way to suppress it? If so, we’d also need a way to >> express whether or not the Typable instance exists in the interface file.) >> >> But it is a substantial change that will touch a lot of lines of code. >> Moreover, someone has to do it, and Iavor (who heroically volunteered) >> happens to be travelling next week. >> >> So it’s really not the kind of thing we would usually do after RC2. >> >> But (a) it’s serious and, as it happens, (b) there is also the BBP >> Prelude debate going on. >> >> Hence the question: should we simply delay 7.10 by, say, a month? After >> all, the timetable is up to us. Doing so might give a bit more breathing >> space to the BBP debate, which might allow time for reflection and/or >> implementation of modest features to help the transition. (I know that >> several are under discussion.) Plus, anyone waiting for 7.10 can simply >> use RC2, which is pretty good. >> >> Would that be a relief to the BBP debate? Or any other opinions. >> >> Simon >> >> PS: I know, I know: there is endless pressure to delay releases to get >> stuff in. If we give in to that pressure, we never make a release. But we >> should know when to break our own rules. Perhaps this is such an occasion. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
