Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

an operator may make things easier to read. This is a very small point, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond! Ryan On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Akio Takano <tkn.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On 7 July 2016 at 19:40, Ryan Trinkle <ryan.trin...@gmail.com>

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

I'm very on the fence on this topic, but one point i haven't seen mentioned is the influence of syntax highlighting on this. My guess is that I would like this extension when I have syntax highlighting available and would dislike it when I do not. Also, I agree with Carter about the record

Re: type error formatting

This looks like an improvement to me. I love the idea of a visual demarcation between sections, too; the bullets seem like a good choice there (the horizontal lines seem like they'd take up more space). Ryan On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote: > I have

Re: Proposal: ValidateMonoLiterals - Initial bikeshed discussion

I think the idea of compile-time validation for overloaded literals is fantastic, and doing it with nicer syntax than quasiquoting would really improve things. However, I'm a bit confused about specifically how the requirement that it be monomorphic will play into this. For example, if I have:

Re: Proposal: ValidateMonoLiterals - Initial bikeshed discussion

IsString polymorphic code. Cheers, Merijn On 6 Feb 2015, at 16:59, Ryan Trinkle ryan.trin...@gmail.com wrote: I think the idea of compile-time validation for overloaded literals is fantastic, and doing it with nicer syntax than quasiquoting would really improve things. However, I'm a bit

Re: GHC 7.4.2 on Ubuntu Trusty

Here's an off-the-wall solution idea: you could try the Nix package manager. It essentially sandboxes everything all the time, so you shouldn't have any trouble with dependencies like this, and ghc 7.4.2 is explicitly supported. Of course, if your requirements include tight apt integration, this

Re: The future of the haskell2010/haskell98 packages - AKA Trac #9590

Would something like John Meacham's class alias proposal ( http://repetae.net/recent/out/classalias.html) help alleviate this problem? On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@me.com wrote:

Re: Proposal: EPHEMERAL pragma

On a related note, it would be nice to have a little more tooling for ensuring that SPECIALIZE pragmas take full effect. In particular, it's nice to write generic code over numeric types (Double, Float), but if it doesn't get specialized away, performance really tanks. Going through a codebase

Re: Superclass Cycle via Associated Type

My situation is fairly similar to Gabor's, and, like him, I was able to make do with an equality superclass. However, instead of combining two classes, I found that I needed to add a third. My concept here is to create two monads which share much of their functionality, but not all of it.

Superclass Cycle via Associated Type

The following code doesn't compile, but it seems sensible enough to me. Is this a limitation of GHC or is there something I'm missing? class C (A x) = C x where type A x :: * instance C Int where type A Int = String instance C String where type A String = Int The error I get is: