Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

On 18 Aug 2016, at 06:34, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > Not a native (British) English speaker, but I've consumed a *lot* of UK > media over the last ~25-30 years and I can literally only recall having > heard "bespoke" used *once* and that was in the term "bespoke suit" > where you can sort-of

Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

On 2016-08-12 20:31, Ryan Scott wrote: > On the subject of alternative names, you may be interested in reading > this section of the DerivingSyntax wiki page [2], which lists other > names besides "bespoke" and "builtin" that have been tossed around as > ideas. They include: > > * magic > *

Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Ryan Scott wrote: > > I can understand your reaction to the word "bespoke". I certainly > never use it in daily conversation, and it's only from Richard's > assurance (and from consulting a dictionary) that I feel confident > about using

Re: Suggesting RankNTypes for ill-formed types

I tend to agree with Oleg that suggesting `ScopedTypeVariables` may be more helpful to users, even though `ExplicitForAll` is more principled. Richard > On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Oleg Grenrus wrote: > > FWIW. Often when I encounter that error, I want

Re: Broken Build due to T1969

Thanks for checking Omer. I reverted the patch for now and the build is green. I'm not sure about the answers to your other questions, as long as the build stays green then I don't mind :) Matt ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org

Back from move

Hello everyone! If I have seemed quiet over the last few weeks it is because I was in the middle of a trans-Atlantic move to the United States. Needless to say, I am now somewhat settled again and will be working through my mail backlog over the next day or so. If you have sent something that

Re: Broken Build due to T1969

I can't reproduce it on my x86_64 Linux laptop when I boot GHC HEAD with GHC 7.10.2. Anyway, feel free to revert 773e3aad (which disables the test) but I think bumping the numbers a little bit is a better option here as that would at least prevent things from getting worse. I'm curious, does

Re: Broken Build due to T1969

I am just seeing it on harbourmaster. https://phabricator.haskell.org/harbormaster/build/12730/?l=100 Matt On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: > Ugh. I validated that patch before committing and validated many times after > that patch. Are you

Re: Broken Build due to T1969

Ugh. I validated that patch before committing and validated many times after that patch. Are you using a 32bit system? Maybe we should bump the numbers for 32bit builds too. I'm hesitant to mark the test broken because I'm afraid that the numbers will increase if we stop testing for

ghc command line arguments parsing

Hi, ghc accepts a flag and its argument as a single quoted or escaped argument as well. For example all of the following are equivalent: ghc -package foo ghc "-package foo" ghc -package\ foo Is this by design or accidental? This has a nice side effect to make passing ghc arguments via rughc

Broken Build due to T1969

Hi all, https://phabricator.haskell.org/rGHC773e3aadac4bbee9a0173ebc90ffdc9458a2a3a9 broke the build by re-enabling the test T1969 The ticket tracking this is: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12437 Omer: Is it best to revert this patch and mark the test broken again? Matt