| Indeed, we could eliminate several hundred lines of boilerplate in GHC if we | could lift this restriction.
Can you be more specific? Which hundreds of lines? Do add this info to the ticket when Gorge makes it. Or just make one! Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Ben Gamari [mailto:b...@smart-cactus.org] | Sent: 29 December 2016 14:50 | To: Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net>; George Colpitts | <george.colpi...@gmail.com> | Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org; Simon Peyton Jones | <simo...@microsoft.com> | Subject: Re: GHC rewrite rules for class operations & laws | | On December 28, 2016 7:27:20 PM EST, Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net> wrote: | >Hi, George. Yes, please do add a task, hopefully to serve as a | >conversation anchor until the issues and path forward are clearer. From | >my perspective, class methods are among the most natural and useful | >candidates for rewrite rules, since they tend to have associated laws, | >many (but not all) of which are helpful in optimization. The | >alternative I know (and am using) is fairly inconvenient: replicating | >entire APIs just in order to delay inlining long enough to apply rules. | > | Indeed, we could eliminate several hundred lines of boilerplate in GHC if we | could lift this restriction. | | Cheers, | | - Ben | _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
