On 6 Aug 2013, at 20:03, Evan Laforge wrote:
I don't know how others like to work, but I like when a compiler bails
early, because I fix errors one at a time, and I search for the
easiest looking ones before worrying about the complicated looking
ones.
With C compilers, it is often the case
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Giving good type error messages is tricky!
Indeed, and I'm fully aware this is a Hard Problem.
You get different behaviour for literals because 0 has type (forall a. Num a
= a), whereas you declared x1 to have
: 27 July 2013 20:36
| To: GHC users
| Subject: cascading type errors in ghc
|
| I frequently see one logical mistake turn into many type errors in
| ghc. Of course in general one logical mistake to a human and a type
| checker can be completely different things, so that's not surprising
I frequently see one logical mistake turn into many type errors in
ghc. Of course in general one logical mistake to a human and a type
checker can be completely different things, so that's not surprising.
The thing is, I feel like I started seeing more with the upgrade to
ghc 7.6 (or was it 7.4?)
