On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
wrote:
> Today I encountered for the first time the notion of an “untouchable”
> type variable. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
Fwiw, "untouchable" variables come from existential quantification
(since
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
> Here's a typical simple type error from GHC:
>
> [...]
>
> I've been having more trouble than usual reading GHC's errors, and I finally
> spent some time to think about it. The problem is that this new "relevant
>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
GHC used to always generalize let-bindings, but our experience
with GADTs lead us to decide that let should not be generalized
with GADTs. So, it's not like we /wanted/ MonoLocalBinds, but
that having them makes the GADT
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
vector generates a considerable amount of code using CPP macros.
And with regard to other mails, I'm not too eager (personally) to port that
to template Haskell, even though I'm no fan of CPP. The code generation
being done
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Alan Kim Zimmerman
alan.z...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it makes sense to scan hackage to find all the different CPP idioms
that are actually used in Haskell code, if it is a small/well-defined set it
may be worth writing a simple custom preprocessor.
Conditional
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Gábor Lehel glaebho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 5:48 AM, wren romano winterkonin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, wren romano winterkonin...@gmail.com
wrote:
-- | The second argument allows handling
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Gabriel Gonzalez gabriel...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't quite understand your question, but I'll try to give a fuller
explanation of the problem I was trying to solve to see if it perhaps
answers your question.
I think the suggestion was something like this:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, wren romano winterkonin...@gmail.com wrote:
-- | The second argument allows handling 'BlockedIndefinitelyOnSTM' etc.
runSTSTM :: (forall s. STSTM s a) - (STMError - b) - b
That should've been something more sensible, like:
atomicallySTSTM
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically, consider:
case Nothing of
!(~(Just x)) - 5
Nothing - 12
Now, the way I'd expect this to work, and how I think the spec says it
works, is that my Nothing is evaluated, and then the irrefutable