Re: Gitlab workflow

Could Marge change the target branch of an MR before merging it? Perhaps this would convince GitLab to show the right info. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 6:18 AM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: > | You believe the one which marge posts telling you that the patch is > |

Re: Guarded Impredicativity

Sorry meant to reply all: I ran into the error recently here: https://github.com/monadfix/named/issues/24 trying to use a fun named arguments library. I can't immediately tell if these changes to GHC are sufficient to help. This library is using a newtype with phantom arguments. On Fri, Jun 28,

Re: Spectre mitigation

This may be relevant: https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/7625886 Note that both GCC and LLVM will be learning this Ratpoline technique. On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote: > With the caveat of that I maybe have no clue what I’m talking about

Re: Removing core-spec.pdf from repository?

The only loss is the ability to look at changes over time. If that's an important feature, you could write the files with a commit hash in the name. But that may not be worth it. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: > It's very helpful

Re: Attempt at a real world benchmark

I'd imagine that "opt-in" could even mean you have to install a separate program/package to send data that's been collected. If it were very separate from the compiler itself, would these security concerns still be a problem? I for one would go through the effort of opting in since I want the

Re: Testsuite and Python 3

The Python community is heavily pushing to get Python 2 out of normal use, so the only reason I can imagine of trying to maintain Python 2 compatibility is if people have written scripts atop GHC's test suites. I sort of doubt that's common. ᐧ On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Ben Gamari

Re: Allow top-level shadowing for imported names?

I second Herbert's concern. Giving semantics to import order is one of the greatest plagues of C, C++, Python, etc. It is worth avoiding at all costs. Herbert's suggestion re: explicitly enumerated names seems to hold promise, however. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel

Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

With the "stock option" might I also suggest "OEM"? ;) +1 stock On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > +1 on `stock` from me. Though I was all excited to get my class next > semester jazzed for PL work by explaining that I had slipped a new keyword >

Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

arding" process are truly herculean and a massive investment to the community. Thank you! Matthew, and other core devs, your hard work and world-class insight make Haskell the technology that it is today and I cannot thank you enough. Elliot Cameron On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Matthew Picker

Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

nce you don't like "bespoke", would you mind suggesting an > > alternative, or advocating for a previously mentioned idea? From [1], > > the ideas I've seen tossed around are: > > > > * builtin > > * standard (Elliot Cameron suggested it here [2]) > > * wiredi

Re: Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

Just a quick thought: The term "built-in" seems a bit myopic IMO since all these extensions are in a sense built-in, and especially if any of them make it into Haskell 2020. I wonder if "standard" would be better or something similar. On Jul 17, 2016 08:57, "Ryan Scott"

Re: Planning for the 7.12 release

I'm going by my rather poor memory for this. Frankly, I don't really care where the option sits, as long as I don't need a separate build of GHC to avoid LGPL. From: Ben Gamari b...@well-typed.com Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 5:48 AM To: Elliot Cameron

Re: Planning for the 7.12 release

I can't seem to find the exact trac ticket, but the ability to swap out Integer implementations at link time would be a huge relief on Windows, which suffers from various problems with dynamic linking. I believe it was originally slated for 7.12. Can someone find it? Here's what I did find:

RE: Help Building GHC on Windows to avoid LGPL

this special treatment to get away from integer-gmp. Elliot Cameron -Original Message- From: Edward Z. Yang [mailto:ezy...@mit.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:52 AM To: Elliot Cameron Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: Help Building GHC on Windows to avoid LGPL Excerpts from Elliot