OverloadedRecordFields merge

Austin Seipp austin at well-typed.com
Mon Apr 21 13:12:14 UTC 2014

Hello all,

As some of you might have seen last week, my colleague Adam took the
time to get his OverloadedRecordFields back up to date with regards to

I'm now wondering: when should we pull the trigger? I am inclined to
say 'soon'. In particular, the ORF changes are rather large, and Adam
has hinted to me it touches a lot of components of e.g. name
resolution. A large change with some fairly big impacts, in other

I think it is perhaps best to merge soon - so that it does not get out
of date and cause undue burden to Adam, but also so that we have
maximal amounts of time to sort out issues in the long haul that it
might expose.

Simon - I believe you reviewed Adam's work in the past, yes? I am
wondering what you think we should do here. I am more than willing to
defer to you and let you do the merge after another review. On the
other hand, if you already did review it and feel confident after a
look or two, I'm more than willing to take over sometime this week.

Adam - since you emailed us last week, Herbert went ahead and merged
'base' into GHC's repository. This does not invalidate the changes you
gave us, it just means the two commits can be collapsed into one.
Also, the performance failures seem like minor anomalies, but I have
not yet directly built the ORF branch to confirm this. You're free to
rebase yourself, or I can likely handle it without much issue soon.

If anyone else has opinions here - please speak up, I'm all ears.

For those reading, Adam's implementation is available in current form here:

 - https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc
 - https://github.com/adamgundry/packages-base
 - https://github.com/adamgundry/haddock


Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list