Happy to go with the bogusness if it works better than injective types,
feel free to submit a patch. :)
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 9:08 pm, Anthony Clayden <
anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 4:13 PM, Clinton Mead
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've panicked
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 4:13 PM, Clinton Mead
wrote:
>
> I've panicked GHC enough whilst developing Freelude so whilst I'm not sure
> exactly what you're saying I'd be hestiant about exploiting anything bogus
> (8.2 btw seems far more stable than 8.0 btw).
>
;-) Fair
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 3:19 PM, David Feuer wrote:
> I still haven't really digested what you've written, but I wish to pick a
> nit (below)
>
Thanks David. Heh, heh. I think we might be agreeing about the phenomenon,
but picking different nits to 'blame'.
> On Nov
Hi AntC
I've panicked GHC enough whilst developing Freelude so whilst I'm not sure
exactly what you're saying I'd be hestiant about exploiting anything bogus
(8.2 btw seems far more stable than 8.0 btw).
The trick is teaching GHC to do all the type trickery it needs so you can
write things like:
I still haven't really digested what you've written, but I wish to pick a
nit (below)
On Nov 20, 2017 3:44 AM, "Anthony Clayden"
wrote:
> On Thu Nov 16 01:31:55 UTC 2017, David Feuer wrote:
...
> For (&&), the obvious things you'd want are ...
>
> There's nothing
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 1:55 PM, Clinton Mead
wrote:
> Injective Type Families are at the core of my "Freelude" package, which
> allows many more types to be defined as Categories, Functors, Applicatives
> and Monads.
>
Cool!
> What would also be helpful is if
Injective Type Families are at the core of my "Freelude" (
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/freelude) package, which allows many
more types to be defined as Categories, Functors, Applicatives and Monads.
For example you can define a tuple of categories as a category and then:
(f1, f2) . (g1 .
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 4:53 PM, Carter Schonwald
wrote:
> This was / perhaps still is one goal of injective type families too! I’m
> not sure why the current status is, but it’s defjnitely related
>
Thanks Carter, yes this sort of injectiviy (semi-injectivity? partial
This was / perhaps still is one goal of injective type families too! I’m
not sure why the current status is, but it’s defjnitely related
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:44 AM Anthony Clayden <
anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > On Thu Nov 16 01:31:55 UTC 2017, David Feuer wrote:
>
> (Moving to
> On Thu Nov 16 01:31:55 UTC 2017, David Feuer wrote:
(Moving to ghc-users, there's nothing particularly dev-y.)
> Sometimes it woulld be useful to be able to reason
backwards
> about type families.
Hi David, this is a well-known issue/bit of a sore.
Discussed much in the debate between type
10 matches
Mail list logo