Re: Untouchable type variables

2017-06-18 Thread wren romano
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

Re: type error formatting

2015-10-30 Thread wren romano
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 >

Re: [Haskell-cafe] The evil GADTs extension in ghci 7.8.4 (maybe in other versions too?)

2015-06-10 Thread wren romano
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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: Native -XCPP Proposal

2015-05-08 Thread wren romano
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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: Native -XCPP Proposal

2015-05-07 Thread wren romano
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

Re: Avoiding BlockedIndefinitelyOnSTM exceptions

2014-07-20 Thread wren romano
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

Re: Avoiding BlockedIndefinitelyOnSTM exceptions

2014-07-19 Thread wren romano
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:

Re: Avoiding BlockedIndefinitelyOnSTM exceptions

2014-07-19 Thread wren romano
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

Re: Bang Patterns

2014-04-02 Thread wren romano
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