new Coercible solver

[Richard Eisenberg]

On Dec 3, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:

> |  If you have a few minutes, I would love a review of my new Coercible
> |  solver (D546). It seems to be humming along, and it tackles #9117
> |  nicely. Even better, for me, it will work much more smoothly with my
> |  dependent types branch. I'm eager to get back to that branch, which is
> |  why I'd like to merge this into master soon.
> 
> A few minutes??!!   Hardly.  Two hours later...    Anyway I've made a start.

Take it as a compliment -- my impression of your infinite efficiency. :)

> 
> I assume this is going to land immediately after the 7.10 fork? But it's not entirely obvious:
> 
> - it is not essential functionality for 7.10
> - but it shouldn't mess anything up (or if it does we want to fix it anyway)
> - and it's a big diff, so *not* putting it in 7.10 will make merging
>   patches to the 7.10 branch harder
> 
> My instinct is to merge soon (assuming it validates), and let Austin decide whether it makes his life easier to have it or not to have it.

Agreed with all your points. At its core, this is just a bugfix for #9117. It's just a rather invasive one. And it's certainly not essential for 7.10. I'm agnostic on whether it gets into 7.10, but my tendency is to believe it will make life easier to merge into 7.10 than not.

Richard

> 
> Simon
> 
> |  -----Original Message-----
> |  From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:eir at cis.upenn.edu]
> |  Sent: 02 December 2014 03:15
> |  To: Simon Peyton Jones
> |  Subject: new Coercible solver
> |  
> |  Hi Simon,
> |  
> |  If you have a few minutes, I would love a review of my new Coercible
> |  solver (D546). It seems to be humming along, and it tackles #9117
> |  nicely. Even better, for me, it will work much more smoothly with my
> |  dependent types branch. I'm eager to get back to that branch, which is
> |  why I'd like to merge this into master soon.
> |  
> |  Thanks!
> |  Richard
> |  
> |  PS: If you want to Skype, I should be available from about 10am my
> |  time on Tuesday. (Also, possibly available somewhere in the 7am-7:45am
> |  stretch, depending on when Emma wakes up.)
>