I'm already uneasy using bang patterns on polymorphic data because I don't
know exactly what it will accomplish. Maybe it adds too much strictness?
Not enough? Simply duplicates work? Perhaps it's acceptable to remove that
feature entirely (although that may require adding extra strictness in a
l
Unfortunately the old class based solution also carries other baggage, like the
old data type contexts being needed in the language for bang patterns. :(
-Edward
> On Apr 1, 2014, at 5:26 PM, John Lato wrote:
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I thought Dan's proposal especi
Hi Edward,
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I thought Dan's proposal especially droll
given that changing seq to a class-based function would be sufficient to
make eta-reduction sound, given appropriate instances (or lack thereof).
Meaning we could leave the rest of the proposal unevaluated (lazi
John,
Check the date and consider the process necessary to "enumerate all Haskell
programs and check their types".
-Edward
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:17 AM, John Lato wrote:
> I think this is a great idea and should become a top priority. I would
> probably start by switching to a type-class-ba
