-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Edward Z. Yang
| Sent: 05 June 2015 01:08
| To: Johan Tibell
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: StrictData and the parser
|
| Excerpts from Johan Tibell's message of 2015-06-04 16:52:30 -0700:
| I guess we should parse
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Excerpts from Brandon Allbery's message of 2015-06-04 13:06:52 -0700:
Looks to me like it's confused about whether a ~ is part of an equality
constraint or is a laziness annotation. The former would be illegal at
that
Excerpts from Johan Tibell's message of 2015-06-04 16:52:30 -0700:
I guess we should parse it as T a (~b), just as we have unary minus bind
tighter with the following token.
Not in all contexts.
It is true that if you have 'data SLPair a b = SLP a ~ b' you want to
parse 'SLP a (~b)'
But if
...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Adam
| Sandberg Eriksson
| Sent: 04 June 2015 20:52
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org; johan.tib...@gmail.com
| Subject: StrictData and the parser
|
| Hello *,
|
| I'm working on the -XStrict language extension[1] for this years Google
| summer of code. I've started with the smaller
Hello *,
I'm working on the -XStrict language extension[1] for this years Google
summer of code. I've started with the smaller -XStrictData (as
documented at the wiki) and have the internals mostly figured out.
However after adding relevant rules for '~' in the parser[2] I get an
explosion of
Excerpts from Brandon Allbery's message of 2015-06-04 13:06:52 -0700:
Looks to me like it's confused about whether a ~ is part of an equality
constraint or is a laziness annotation. The former would be illegal at that
point, though, I'd think? Somewhere it believes a constraint might be
Hello Adam,
At a guess, ~ is ambiguous with the type equality syntax a ~ b.
You'll probably have to add a new production for types (similar
to atype) which are at the top level of a data constructor definition.
I recently wrote some documentation on how to interpret Happy
info files. There
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Adam Sandberg Eriksson
a...@sandbergericsson.se wrote:
However after adding relevant rules for '~' in the parser[2] I get an
explosion of shift/reduce conflicts as well as 4 extra reduce/reduce
conflicts, see [3] for the happy info (the states with 36
