I'd be happy to raise a ticket, but it might take a few days -- work trip. On Tue, May 21, 2019, 01:55 Simon Peyton Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have to be careful in how we define "equality" in the above sentence, > including class constraints that (may) have superclass equality constraints. > > > > Indeed. That’s what happens now. > > > > I do think this would work. > > > > Cool. Nick or Iavor: would you like to turn this conversation into a > ticket? > > > > (Although it is technically user-facing, it is a very small corner and I’m > not sure it would need a GHC proposal – others may want to comment.) > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* Richard Eisenberg <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 21 May 2019 09:43 > *To:* Simon Peyton Jones <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Nicolas Frisby <[email protected]>; Iavor Diatchki < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; Ryan Scott < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Bug or feature? > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > But (A) looks sound to me. > > > > I like (A). (B) makes me nervous, too. > > > > > A. An implication is considered to “bind local equalities” iff it has at > least one given equality whose free variables are not all bound by the same > implication. > > > > We have to be careful in how we define "equality" in the above sentence, > including class constraints that (may) have superclass equality > constraints. I do think this would work. > > > > Richard >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
