ptember 2015 18:24
| > *To:* Simon Peyton Jones; Simon Marlow; Ryan Newton
| > *Cc:* ghc-devs@haskell.org
| > *Subject:* RFC: Unpacking sum types
| >
| > I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
| > feedback on. In particular feedback both on:
|
.org
| > *Subject:* RFC: Unpacking sum types
| >
| > I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
| > feedback on. In particular feedback both on:
| >
| > * the writing and clarity of the proposal and
| >
| > * the proposal itself.
.org
| > *Subject:* RFC: Unpacking sum types
| >
| > I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
| > feedback on. In particular feedback both on:
| >
| > * the writing and clarity of the proposal and
| >
| > * the proposal itself.
*To:* Simon Peyton Jones; Simon Marlow; Ryan Newton
*Cc:* ghc-devs@haskell.org
*Subject:* RFC: Unpacking sum types
I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
feedback on. In particular feedback both on:
* the writing and clarity of the proposal and
* the proposal itself.
https
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2015, 08:53 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow:
> On 07/09/2015 15:35, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> > Good start.
> >
> > I have updated the page to separate the source-language design (what the
> > programmer sees) from the implementation.
> >
> > And I have included boxed
an unboxed
tuple.
(# (# Int,Bool #) | Int #)
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 08 September 2015 09:55
| To: Simon Peyton Jones; Johan Tibell; Ryan Newton
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Unpacking sum types
(# (# Int,Bool #) | Int #)
>
> Simon
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com]
> | Sent: 08 September 2015 09:55
> | To: Simon Peyton Jones; Johan Tibell; Ryan Newton
> | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
> | Subject: Re: Unpacking
(# (# Int,Bool #) | Int #)
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> | -Original Message-
>> | From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com]
>> | Sent: 08 September 2015 09:55
>> | To: Simon Peyton Jones; Johan Tibell; Ryan Newton
>> | Cc: ghc-devs@hask
: 01 September 2015 18:24
To: Simon Peyton Jones; Simon Marlow; Ryan Newton
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: RFC: Unpacking sum types
I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some feedback on.
In particular feedback both on:
* the writing and clarity of the proposal
gt; From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 01 September 2015 18:24
> To: Simon Peyton Jones; Simon Marlow; Ryan Newton
> Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
> Subject: RFC: Unpacking sum types
>
>
>
> I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like som
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 01.09.2015, 10:23 -0700 schrieb Johan Tibell:
> I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
> feedback on. In particular feedback both on:
>
> * the writing and clarity of the proposal and
> * the proposal itself.
>
> https://ghc
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: Johan Tibell; Simon Marlow; Ryan Newton; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Unpacking sum types
|
| Are we okay with stealing some operator sections for this? E.G. (x
| ||). I think the boxed sums larger than 2 choices are all technically
| overlapping with sections
I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some feedback
on. In particular feedback both on:
* the writing and clarity of the proposal and
* the proposal itself.
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/UnpackedSumTypes
-- Johan
if they would cover all cases, though (like the strictness concerns
above).
-- Dan
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some feedback
> on. In particular feedback both on:
>
&
eivably they
>> could be used as part of the specification of unpacked sums, since we
>> can apparently put unboxed tuples in data types now. I'm not certain
>> if they would cover all cases, though (like the strictness concerns
>> above).
>>
>> -- Dan
>>
>>
>
> If we expose it on the Haskell level, I find MkSum_1_2# the right thing
> to do: It makes it clear that (conceptually) there really is a
> constructor of that name, and it is distinct from MkSum_2_2#, and the
> user cannot do computation with these indices.
>
I don't mind MkSum_1_2#, it
ntly put unboxed tuples in data types now. I'm not certain
> if they would cover all cases, though (like the strictness concerns
> above).
>
> -- Dan
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have a draft design for un
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2015, 01:44 + schrieb Ryan Newton:
> Why is there an "_n" suffix on the type constructor? Isn't it
> syntactically evident how many things are in the |# .. | .. #|
> block?
Correct.
> More generally, are the parser changes and the wild new syntax
> strictly
Tibell
<johan.tib...@gmail.com>:
>I have a draft design for unpacking sum types that I'd like some
>feedback
>on. In particular feedback both on:
>
> * the writing and clarity of the proposal and
> * the proposal itself.
>
>https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wik
19 matches
Mail list logo
