Re: What's the modern way to apply a polymorphic function to a Dynamic value in GHC 8.8 and onwards?

p = undefined > > newtype TimeSeries a = TimeSeries {readTimeSeries :: IO (Maybe a)} > > instance Functor TimeSeries where > fmap = undefined > > ``` > > I'm still wrapping my head around it, for how the `pattern TypeRep` works > in this case. > > Or you think there exists a

Re: What's the modern way to apply a polymorphic function to a Dynamic value in GHC 8.8 and onwards?

Your function is not `forall a. a -> f a`, as in your initial example, but requires its argument to be an `EventSink`. The value you unwrap from the `Dynamic` is any existential type, not necessarily an `EventSink`. You'll have to compare the TypeReps (with something like `eqTypeRep`[1], or wrap

Re: haskell.org not sending intermediate certs

I noticed this as well, since my work VPN does fairly strict certificate checking and didn't allow me to connect to any haskell.org urls due to this. I'm not sure about the right list, I've added ad...@haskell.org to the CC list. Erik On 18 December 2016 at 07:12, Edward Z. Yang

Re: Why upper bound version numbers?

e is fixed a hard upper bound is required. Likewise for > hard lower bounds. > > And arguments about "it shouldn't happen with the PVP" don't hold, because > it does happen, PVP is a human judgement thing. > > Alan > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Er

Re: Why upper bound version numbers?

What do you expect will be the distribution of 'soft' and 'hard' upper bounds? In my experience, all upper bounds currently are 'soft' upper bounds. They might become 'hard' upper bounds for a short while after e.g. a GHC release, but in general, if a package maintainer knows that a package fails

Re: Why upper bound version numbers?

Others have already commented on many aspects of this discussion, but I just wanted to mention that cabal has an '--allow-newer' flag to disregard these constraints, so '--allow-newer=base' would allow you to try and compile this package with GHC 8. Since GHC 8 is very recent though and base 4.3

Re: TH changes for ghc 8.0

On 12 April 2016 at 07:36, Matthias Fischmann wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:22:23PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:22:23 +1000 >> From: Erik de Castro Lopo >> To: ghc-devs@haskell.org >> Subject: TH changes for ghc

Re: GHC 8.0.1 status

I've found what I believe to be a regression in GHC 8 rc2 [1], and the wiki says to yell if I want to bring it to the attention of GHC developers. So this is me yelling, I guess :) I'm not sure if this bug is important enough to be included, but I think it would be good for someone to look at it

Re: Abstract FilePath Proposal

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com wrote: To all the people who are worried about breakage, I can guarantee this will cause breakage. It's a sad fact, and certainly the main negative to this proposal. I was on the fence initially when hvr suggested this change

Re: Abstract FilePath Proposal

I think this proposal is currently underspecified. For example, it's not clear to me what the semantics of a FilePath are. I have the feeling that `toFilePah` should return a Maybe, for example, but it's hard to say without knowing what it's converting to, exactly. I also worry about the immense

Re: Abstract FilePath Proposal

to be sure is to run the builds on hackage (or stackage, but that's a smaller sample size). Erik On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com wrote: I think this proposal is currently underspecified. For example, it's not clear to me what the semantics of a FilePath

Re: MonadFail proposal (MFP): Moving fail out of Monad

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote: On 10/06/15 14:22, Johan Tibell wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:42 AM, David Luposchainsky dluposchain...@googlemail.com

Re: quick report using GHC 7.10 RC3

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Mark Lentczner mark.lentcz...@gmail.com wrote: 7. Cabal incompatible API change In particular, the api that a custom Setup.hs uses. Distribution.Simple.UserHooks changed the type of a hook. It should not, it should have added another to do what it wanted. The

Re: wither the Platform

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel h...@gnu.org wrote: Or put differently, how shall HP users be informed they're not running the latest HP version with all known critical bugs fixed? While I can see most of the problems people claim the platform has, this particular one

Re: wither the Platform

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com wrote: On Windows, the reason I used to use the Platform was that it came with an installed network library, and installing the network library on Windows is a real pain (and often fails). Unfortunately it was incredibly

Re: Building vector with GHC HEAD

Or [1]. The tl;dr: add where rnf x = seq x () to the instance to get the old behavior. Erik [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Migration/7.10#deepseq-1.4.0.0 On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote: See http://bit.ly/1CDVOIZ On 17/02/15 15:19, Jan

Re: Proposal: ValidateMonoLiterals - Initial bikeshed discussion

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Dominique Devriese dominique.devri...@cs.kuleuven.be wrote: Agreed. For the idea to scale, good support for type-level programming with Integers/Strings/... is essential. Something else that would be useful is an unsatisfiable primitive constraint constructor