On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 7:08 PM, Anthony Clayden < anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 6:12 PM, Anthony Clayden < > anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 9:36 PM, Tom Schrijvers wrote: >> >>> Maybe our Haskell'17 paper about Elaboration on Functional Dependencies >>> sheds some more light on your problem: >>> >>> https://people.cs.kuleuven.be/~tom.schrijvers/Research/papers/haskell2017a.pdf >>> >>> >> > I feel I'm not getting much light shed. No amount of adding `(~)` in GHC > nor `TypeCast`+`typeCast` method in Hugs will get #9627 function `f` to > compile. So my 'specific example' earlier in this thread shows `(~)` is > moderately eager/more eager than FunDeps alone, but not eager enough for > #9627. > Can anybody explain @yav's comment here https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158#issuecomment-449590613 "currently equality constraints have no run-time evidence associated with them". Haskell has type-erasure semantics. Why would I need any _run-time_ evidence for anything to do with type improvement? What impact would the lack of evidence have at run-time? Does this mean `(~)` constraints don't produce evidence at compile time? Which is also the difficulty for type improvement under FunDeps. (I tried a type family to achieve the same effect as `(~)` with an injective TF. No improvement in improvement.) AntC > >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
