r by instance resolution from `k`, which does appear explicitly in the
> LHS
>
>
>
> Well this would be something qualitatively new. We don’t that ability in
> rules; and it’s far from clear to me what it would mean anyway. I suppose
> that if k was instantiated to a ground typ
. We’d have to see how it
goes.
Simon
From: conal.elli...@gmail.com [mailto:conal.elli...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Conal Elliott
Sent: 12 October 2017 20:02
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC rewrite rule type-checking failure
For no
and
>> some variable of type (C t) was in scope. Should that work too?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m highly dubious.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happily it sounds as if you are making progress with help from Joachim.
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
l.elli...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Conal Elliott
> *Sent:* 03 October 2017 16:30
> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* Re: GHC rewrite rule type-checking failure
>
>
>
>
>
> The revised example I gave earlier in the thread:
>
>
with help from Joachim.
Simon
From: conal.elli...@gmail.com [mailto:conal.elli...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Conal Elliott
Sent: 03 October 2017 16:30
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: GHC rewrite rule type-checking failure
The revised example I gave earlier in the
all the type and dictionary abstractions written
> explicitly…
>
>
>
> S
>
>
>
> *From:* conal.elli...@gmail.com [mailto:conal.elli...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Conal Elliott
> *Sent:* 03 October 2017 15:56
> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>
>
>
c: glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org<mailto:glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org>
Subject: Re: GHC rewrite rule type-checking failure
Thanks very much for the reply, Joachim.
Oops! I flubbed the example. I really `morph` to distribute over an application
of `comp`. New code below (and at
