"While were in there", it occurred to me that one `coerce` per constructor argument ideally ought to suffice.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 07:17 GHC <[email protected]> wrote: > #8516: Add (->) representation and the Invariant class to GHC.Generics > -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > Reporter: nfrisby | Owner: > Type: feature request | Status: new > Priority: low | Milestone: > Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 7.7 > checker) | > Resolution: | Keywords: Generics > Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: > | Unknown/Multiple > Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: > Blocked By: | Blocking: > Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): > Wiki Page: | > -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > > Comment (by RyanGlScott): > > And as it turns out, goldfire has a separate ticket (#8177) for the > proposed idea of being able to give explicit role signatures to type > families, which might make the potential regression in > [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8516#comment:7 this comment] not > an actual regression. See my comment > [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8177#comment:31 here]. > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8516#comment:11> > GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> > The Glasgow Haskell Compiler >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
