I think the point is more that runtime evidence means passing an additional
type witness around, potentially changing generated code and even behavior
(if this causes dictionary passing where none had been needed previously).
It's not addressing your question.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:48 PM
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 7:08 PM, Anthony Clayden <
anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 6:12 PM, Anthony Clayden <
> anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 9:36 PM, Tom Schrijvers wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe our Haskell'17 paper about Elaboration on
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 8:01 PM, Oliver Charles wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:08 AM Anthony Clayden
> wrote:
>
> > So the paper's main motivation is wrt Trac #9670.
>
> Are you sure you mean #9670?
>
Oops. Thanks for the catch Oliver. That should be #9627. (One of the
tickets to do with
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:08 AM Anthony Clayden
wrote:
> So the paper's main motivation is wrt Trac #9670.
Are you sure you mean #9670?
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9670 is "Make Data.List.tails
a good producer for list fusion" and has nothing to do with functional
dependencies.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 6:12 PM, Anthony Clayden <
anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 9:36 PM, Tom Schrijvers wrote:
>
>> Maybe our Haskell'17 paper about Elaboration on Functional Dependencies
>> sheds some more light on your problem:
>>
>>
