Ignore my last email. I was accidentally using
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.9.20080616
Mind you I am still having problems just not the same ones. I'll report
back later.
Dominic.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
| I also feel that the type errors given when working with existential
| types, especially GADTs with existentials, are confusing. I think
|
| I am using existential types to test GADT code. See
| http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/QuickCheck_/_GADT which no longer
| works with 6.10.1.
Really?
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I also feel that the type errors given when working with existential
| types, especially GADTs with existentials, are confusing. I think
|
| I am using existential types to test GADT code. See
| http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/QuickCheck_/_GADT which no
| arbitrarySeq :: Sequence a - Gen RepSeqVal
| arbitrarySeq Nil =
| return (RepSeqVal Nil Empty)
| arbitrarySeq (Cons (CTMandatory (NamedType n i t)) ts) =
| do u - arbitraryType t
|us - arbitrarySeq ts
|case u of
| RepTypeVal a v -
| case us of
|
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| arbitrarySeq :: Sequence a - Gen RepSeqVal
| arbitrarySeq Nil =
| return (RepSeqVal Nil Empty)
| arbitrarySeq (Cons (CTMandatory (NamedType n i t)) ts) =
| do u - arbitraryType t
|us - arbitrarySeq ts
|case u of
| RepTypeVal
In my case, we had rigid type signatures all over the place. The
wiki document says that the type must be rigid at the point of the
match. I guess that's what we were violating. If the code I posted
isn't supposed to type check then I would like to report, as user
feedback, that GADTs have
In my case, we had rigid type signatures all over the place. The wiki document
says that the type must be rigid at the point of the match. I guess that's
what we were violating. If the code I posted isn't supposed to type check then
I would like to report, as user feedback, that GADTs have
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
In my case, we had rigid type signatures all over the place. The wiki
document says that the type must be rigid at the point of the match. I
guess that's what we were violating. If the code I posted isn't
Jason Dagit dagit at codersbase.com writes:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simonpj at
microsoft.com wrote:
You need a type signature for the case expression. As Daniel says, this is
worth a
Dominic Steinitz dominic.steinitz at blueyonder.co.uk writes:
packaged form for my flavour of linux. I will put some work into doing this
today and report back.
Dominic.
Phew - I installed the windows 6.10.1 package and everything to do with GADTs
still seems to work.
Dominic.
Hello,
Here is an example where ghc 6.8.x was fine, but now 6.10 complains.
\begin{code}
type CommuteFunction = forall x y. (Prim : Prim) C(x y) - Perhaps
((Prim : Prim) C(x y))
commute_split :: CommuteFunction
commute_split (Split patches : patch) =
toPerhaps $ do (p1 : ps) - cs (patches :
On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:
Hello,
[...]
My understanding was that from 6.6 to 6.8, GADT type checking was
refined to fill some gaps in the soundness. Did that happen again
between 6.8 and 6.10 or is 6.10 being needlessly strict here?
Thanks,
Jason
typing rules for
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Dagit
| Sent: 21 November 2008 16:04
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: GADT Type Checking GHC 6.10 versus older GHC
|
| Hello,
|
| Here is an example where ghc 6.8.x was fine, but now 6.10 complains.
|
| \begin{code}
| type CommuteFunction = forall x y
13 matches
Mail list logo
