Hello,
On 10/19/07, Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
...
Like you, Iavor, I find it very hard to internalise just why (B) and (C)
are important. But I believe the paper gives examples of why they are, and
Martin is getting good at explaining it.
Hi All,
Here are my responses to the recent messages, starting with some
summary comments:
- I agree with Martin that the condition I posted a few days ago is
equivalent to the *refined* weak coverage condition in your
paper. The refined tag here is important---I missed it the
first time
Iavor Diatchki writes:
Hello,
On 10/19/07, Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
...
Like you, Iavor, I find it very hard to internalise just why (B) and
(C) are important. But I believe the paper gives examples of why they
are, and Martin
Mark P Jones writes:
Hi All,
Here are my responses to the recent messages, starting with some
summary comments:
- I agree with Martin that the condition I posted a few days ago is
equivalent to the *refined* weak coverage condition in your
paper. The refined tag here is
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
| I believe that this weak coverage condition (which is also called
| the dependency condition somewhere on the wiki) is exactly what GHC
| 6.4 used to implement but than in 6.6 this changed. According to
| Simon's comments on the trac ticket, this rule requires
[Sorry, I guess this should have been in the cafe ...]
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The trouble is that
a) the coverage condition ensures that everything is well behaved
b) but it's too restrictive for some uses of FDs, notably the MTL library
c) there are many possibilities for more generous
Mark P Jones writes:
[Sorry, I guess this should have been in the cafe ...]
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The trouble is that
a) the coverage condition ensures that everything is well behaved
b) but it's too restrictive for some uses of FDs, notably the MTL library
c) there are many
Sorry, forgot to add
[2]
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sulzmann/publications/jfp-fds-revised.pdf
Martin
Martin Sulzmann writes:
Mark P Jones writes:
[Sorry, I guess this should have been in the cafe ...]
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The trouble is that
a) the coverage
Hello,
I believe that this weak coverage condition (which is also called
the dependency condition somewhere on the wiki) is exactly what GHC
6.4 used to implement but than in 6.6 this changed. According to
Simon's comments on the trac ticket, this rule requires FDs to be
full to preserve the
| I believe that this weak coverage condition (which is also called
| the dependency condition somewhere on the wiki) is exactly what GHC
| 6.4 used to implement but than in 6.6 this changed. According to
| Simon's comments on the trac ticket, this rule requires FDs to be
| full to preserve the
10 matches
Mail list logo
