OK, I made #16684 to track the issue: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/16684
Perhaps we should continue the discussion over there. -Iavor On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Nicolas Frisby <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
