Unpacking coercions

Simon Peyton Jones simonpj at microsoft.com
Wed Sep 5 14:20:34 UTC 2018

Simple is good.  But what is this dead simple idea?

Perhaps: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/116
But that proposal lists several possible alternatives.  Which one did you mean?

And all of them are language changes. Making evidence strict would require no language changes to solve the original problem.

Maybe this thread belongs with the proposal, unless I’m misunderstanding.


From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Scott
Sent: 05 September 2018 15:15
To: ghc-devs at haskell.org
Subject: Re: Unpacking coercions

These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. While I'm sure there's many ways we could solve this problem, David's idea has the distinct advantage of being dead simple. I'd rather not block his vision on some other large refactor that may never materialize. (And if it _does_ materialize, we could revert any wiring-in of Coercible quite easily.)

Ryan S.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20180905/2eca4b94/attachment.html>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list