OverloadedRecordFields merge

[Austin Seipp]

I rebased the ORF work (fixing a minor merge by hand) and it is now
available in GHC and Haddock under the 'orf' branches. Do feel free to
give them a try.

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
<fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/21/2014 03:12 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
>> 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
>> HEAD.
>>
>> 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
>> words.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> I see a change to the Haddock interface file but the interface file
> version was not bumped (top of the file) which means that Haddock will
> try to read old interface file versions which will fail (I think). I
> would try myself but my system currently isn't really in appropriate
> state, perhaps I manage to do so later. It'd be great if we could
> default that to empty Map if we can't read it in but I don't think we
> can do that with existing binary (but we should be able to with the
> future CBOR stuff).
>
> Other than that, the Haddock patch looks good but again, I can not try
> it myself at the moment.
>
> I have to say I'm quite excited for overloaded records.
>
> --
> Mateusz K.
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>



-- 
Regards,

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