Re: Can strict ST break referential transparency?

So my theory is correct, but it is already fixed in 8.2. Nice! Thank you for clarification! Yuras. 23-11-2017, Чцв а 10:20 -0500, Ben Gamari напісаў: > Yuras Shumovich writes: > > > Hello, > > > > Hello, > > Sorry for the late reply; this required a bit of

Re: Can strict ST break referential transparency?

22-11-2017, Срд а 15:37 -0500, David Feuer напісаў: > If there is indeed a problem, I suspect the right way to fix it is to > make sure that no partially evaluated thunk is ever resumed twice. > Inter-thread exceptions are presumably rare enough that we don't have > to worry *too* much about their

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

On 20 January 2014 17:29, Andres Löh wrote: > (2) Simply because GHC 7.8 is itself so long delayed and so full of > new features, I think it's realistic to assume that quite a few > library glitches will appear even after it's released. Also, GHC bugs > may be found only

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

Just a quick +1 for including GHC 7.8 in the next HP release. Regarding compiler features, shipping GHC 7.6.3 again would mean that the HP is still roughly at September 2012 (the first release of GHC 7.6.x). Furthermore, I don't fully buy into the argument that we should wait for 7.8 to stabilize:

Re: We need to add role annotations for 7.8

Apols if I'm overstating the case, but let me try to clear things up. Roles are not in place to provide a "safe" cheap coerce. Roles are in place to _prevent_ an unsoundness with newtype deriving in the presence of type families. They also happen to _allow_ a cheaper coerce. The unsoundness

Unsubscribe

Unsubscribe ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The build is broken (Solaris/x86, FreeBSD/{i386,amd64})

On 2014-04-15 at 06:52:42 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote: >> I think Simon Marlow is even more conservative, and >> does his validate builds in a separate tree so he catches missing >> files. > I thought everyone is doing that. Btw, using such a workflow[1] is actually almost a necessity if you

Re: [Action Needed] Document your work for the Haskell Communities and Activities Report

Ben Gamari writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > TL;DR. If you see your name in one of the two lists below, please edit >the entries for your contributions to 8.0 and plans for 8.2 in >the 2016 GHC HCAR report [1]. The deadline is in a few short >

Unstuck old messages

Hello everyone, I was doing some maintenance on the mailman server that hosts this list, and several messages that were stuck in the queue for what appears to be a rather long time have been released. The queue is now empty, so if these messages are no longer relevant, please ignore them. --

A modest proposal (re the Platform)

Looks like GHC 7.8 is pretty near release. And while I know that we really like to have a GHC out for a while, and perhaps see the .1 release, before we incorporate it into the Platform, this GHC, while including many new and anticipated things, seems pretty well hammered on. Combine that with

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

+1 On Jan 19, 2014 3:15 PM, "Mark Lentczner" wrote: > Looks like GHC 7.8 is pretty near release. > > And while I know that we really like to have a GHC out for a while, and > perhaps see the .1 release, before we incorporate it into the Platform, > this GHC, while

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

A few specific points: 1) 2013.4.0.0 isn't really "ready to be pushed" - there were delays, and then some rolling updates... and some churn. While there is a proposed set of packages... and it does compile... there is still some work on the Mac version (it needs to incorporate my patch script for

[Action Needed] Document your work for the Haskell Communities and Activities Report

TL;DR. If you see your name in one of the two lists below, please edit the entries for your contributions to 8.0 and plans for 8.2 in the 2016 GHC HCAR report [1]. The deadline is in a few short weeks so act soon! Hello GHC people, As you might know, it's that time of the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 7.10.3 release candidate 2 - problems compiling source on Mac OS with clang

I don't understand. By they do you mean the HsOpenSSL team? As I've written twice in this thread I have installed openssl via brew so I don't know why you are telling me to install it via brew . I've referenced the HsOpenSSL github page that has an issue on the use of openssl saying it is broken

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

+1 I'm just a user, but I'm very excited about the possibility of getting a GHC 7.8 platform release sooner than later (especially considering Mio and the other great additions). Another release with the same GHC wouldn't do me much good. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Mark Lentczner

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Andres Löh wrote: > I can understand the motivation of this proposal, but I'm slightly worried: +1 > (2) Simply because GHC 7.8 is itself so long delayed and so full of > new features, I think it's realistic to assume that quite a few >

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

> > I know it is difficult but if ghc and haskell-platform could align > their schedules better then things might be easier to plan in the future. > Really I would like to see a HP release now *and* one after 7.8.1! :) I think HP beta releases should follow each ghc release and there can be

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

Indeed. Perhaps more importantly: many long standing problems, relating to how ghci linking works on every major platform, and having win64 support, look to be resolved In 7.8. These are HUGE. Additionally the Cpp that's a bother on osx and bsd systems matter goes away for HP if the next release

Re: A modest proposal (re the Platform)

Jens, are you willing to undertake providing support for all the problems in current 7.6 on ALL platforms right now? Are you willing to test the builds on all platforms, and be the person to help everyone who's hitting issues? doing an HP release now will push back the release timeline of an HP

Re: We need to add role annotations for 7.8

Speaking from the vantage point of platform This pair of comments (emphasis mine) have my alarm index on high: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Johan Tibell wrote: > I'm quite worried about this change though. I thought the default rolefor > data type was nominal, as

Re: We need to add role annotations for 7.8

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > No; if the default is representational, everything works as it did in > earlier versions, potential bugs/unsafety and all. If the default is > immediately switched to nominal, *then* every affected type must be >

Re: We need to add role annotations for 7.8

2014-03-24 15:14 GMT+01:00 Mark Lentczner : > Speaking from the vantage point of platform This pair of comments > (emphasis mine) have my alarm index on high: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Johan Tibell > wrote: [...] >> So, the best

RE: [GHC] #14490: TTG Snags

Yes, but it is not feasible before GHC 8.6, due to needing GHC >= 8.2 for bootstrapping. True. But 8.4 will fork off shortly; so once that is done, we are happy with perf, we can add the change to master in preparation for 8.6. Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On

RE: Can strict ST break referential transparency?

If the conclusion is that there's a bug here, could someone distil the example into a ticket? Thanks Simon | -Original Message- | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Ben | Gamari | Sent: 23 November 2017 15:20 | To: Yuras Shumovich ;