Hi, I understood one more point. (I share here.) The Prelude library document for ghc 8.0 is already well described for beginners/newcomers.
* The ($)'s signature of 8.0.1 is already simple (not include forall ...). * The Bool's kind of 8.0.1 is already represented with "TYPE Lifted" (changed from '*'). ghc7.8.4 [1]: data Bool :: * foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b ($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b ghc7.10.4 [2]: data Bool :: * foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b ($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b ghc8.0.1-rc2 [3]: data Bool :: TYPE Lifted foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b ($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b [1] https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/7.8.4/docs/html/libraries/base-4.7.0.2/Prelude.html [2] https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/libraries/base-4.8.2.0/Prelude.html [3] https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/8.0.1-rc2/docs/html/libraries/base-4.9.0.0/Prelude.html Regards, Takenobu 2016-02-08 19:08 GMT+09:00 Takenobu Tani <takenobu...@gmail.com>: > Hi Richard and devs, > > What a wonderful (#11549) ! > This is a beautiful solution for beginners/newcomers. > Beginners will not confuse and they can gradually go ahead. > > I extremely appreciate that you are continuously improving the ghc for us. > > Thank you very much, > Takenobu > > > 2016-02-07 0:17 GMT+09:00 Richard Eisenberg <e...@cis.upenn.edu>: > >> I have made a ticket #11549 ( >> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11549) requesting a >> -fshow-runtime-rep flag (recalling that the name levity will soon be >> outdated) as described in this thread. I will make sure this gets in for >> the release of 8.0. >> >> Other points: >> >> - You're quite right that (.) could be generalized. But I'll wait for >> someone to really want this. >> >> - I don't have a non-contrived example of the use of ($) with unlifted >> types. It's quite possible that when adding the dirty runST hack, it was >> observed that an unlifted type would be OK. At that point, the type of ($) >> didn't need to become so elaborate. And now we're just trying not to change >> old (but perhaps unrequested) behavior. >> >> - For the record, this debate is entirely unrelated to the runST >> impredicativity hack. (Except, as noted above, perhaps in history.) That >> hack remains, basically unchanged. >> >> - On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <r...@ro-che.info> wrote: >> > >> > I would call this a simplification rather than a lie. >> >> This is a very convincing argument. >> >> - Thanks, also, for the voice of support. What I love about the Haskell >> community is that we can have an impassioned debate full of strong >> opinions, and it all very rarely devolves into a proper flame war. All the >> posts I've seen in this thread have been constructive and helpful. Thanks. >> >> Richard >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> haskell-c...@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
