OverloadedRecordFields

[Adam Gundry]

Simon,

On 25/02/14 16:18, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> 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.  

Right. I wasn't suggesting to put OverloadedRecordFields in 7.8, just
the 7.9 master branch! But given the potential need to backport fixes
from master to the 7.8 branch, I think it makes sense to wait.


> 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

They are up to date but I'll go over them and tidy them up. Alas, it
doesn't look like Trac supports redirects...

Adam


> | -----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

-- 
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/