OverloadedRecordFields

[Simon Peyton Jones]

Adam

I'm very happy to hear that... good stuff.

I'm under water with ICFP submissions (deadline Sat).  Moreover I think it is clearly too later to put this into 7.8; RC1 is out and I expect RC2 any day.

So I suggest we plan to merge after 7.8 is out.  

Are the wiki pages up to date? 
Records/OverloadedRecordFields
Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Implementation
Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan

The first does not point to the latter two; "Plan" may mean "Design"... I feel some rationalisation may make sense

Simon
	
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Adam Gundry [mailto:adam at well-typed.com]
| Sent: 24 February 2014 08:37
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Subject: Re: OverloadedRecordFields
| 
| Hi Simon,
| 
| My OverloadedRecordFields branches[1,2,3] are up to date with HEAD as of
| last Saturday. Validate on linux x86_64 reports only one failure, the
| haddock.Cabal perf test, which might well be due to my Haddock changes,
| and I will investigate. I'm not sure how to run the Haddock test suite?
| 
| I am keen to get the code reviewed and into HEAD as soon as is
| convenient, but I'm aware these are substantial changes, and don't want
| to rush things. In particular, I would understand if you'd rather hold
| them back until after the 7.8 final release.
| 
| How would you like to proceed?
| 
| Adam
| 
| [1] https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc
| [2] https://github.com/adamgundry/packages-base
| [3] https://github.com/adamgundry/haddock
| 
| 
| On 17/01/14 10:55, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
| > Yes that sounds ok, thanks.  I'd prefer to have a write-up of what
| goes wrong with the 2-parameter story, so that we don't forget.
| >
| > Simon
| >
| > | -----Original Message-----
| > | From: Adam Gundry [mailto:adam at well-typed.com]
| > | Sent: 17 January 2014 10:15
| > | To: Simon Peyton Jones
| > | Subject: OverloadedRecordFields
| > |
| > | Hi Simon,
| > |
| > | I'm conscious that things have gone off the boil a little wrt
| > | OverloadedRecordFields, partially as a consequence of the delayed
| > | 7.8 release but also my lack of time for other projects since
| > | starting work for Well-Typed. With that in mind, I'd like to propose
| > | a plan to get back on track:
| > |
| > | 1. Revert to the three-parameter story, where we have
| > |
| > |     t ~ FldTy r f => Has r f t
| > |
| > | rather than
| > |
| > |     Has r f.
| > |
| > | The two-parameter version generates significantly worse error
| > | messages, and there are some other unresolved problems, so I'm not
| > | sure it is worth the minor simplification.
| > |
| > | 2. Roll back some of the refactoring that I've struggled to get
| > | right (in particular, trying to make the generated FldTy/UpdTy
| > | axioms implicitTyThings). We can always revisit this in the future
| though.
| > |
| > | 3. Merge HEAD into my branch: I suspect this will be a bit painful
| > | by now, but presumably with 7.8 imminent there won't be many major
| > | changes coming for a while?
| > |
| > | 4. Review the proposed changes with you and fix any show-stopping
| > | problems.
| > |
| > | 5. Merge into HEAD after 7.8 is released.
| > |
| > | Does this sound plausible? I'm happy to Skype if you like.
| > |
| > | Cheers,
| > |
| > | Adam
| > |
| > | P.S. I'm not sure if Andrew Kennedy has mentioned it to you, but
| > | Neil Ghani has got me some funding to work with them both on units
| > | of measure for Haskell. We are still sorting out the details, but I
| > | hope it might be possible to work on some kind of plugin mechanism
| > | for GHC's constraint solver, along the lines that Iavor has been
| > | investigating, if that would be of interest?
| > |
| > | --
| > | Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
| > | Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
| >
| 
| 
| --
| Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
| Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/