Bug or feature?
Simon Peyton Jones
simonpj at microsoft.com
Tue May 21 08:55:26 UTC 2019
We have to be careful in how we define "equality" in the above sentence, including class constraints that (may) have superclass equality constraints.
Indeed. That’s what happens now.
I do think this would work.
Cool. Nick or Iavor: would you like to turn this conversation into a ticket?
(Although it is technically user-facing, it is a very small corner and I’m not sure it would need a GHC proposal – others may want to comment.)
From: Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu>
Sent: 21 May 2019 09:43
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
Cc: Nicolas Frisby <nicolas.frisby at gmail.com>; Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>; ghc-devs at haskell.org; Ryan Scott <ryan.gl.scott at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bug or feature?
On May 21, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>> wrote:
But (A) looks sound to me.
I like (A). (B) makes me nervous, too.
> A. An implication is considered to “bind local equalities” iff it has at least one given equality whose free variables are not all bound by the same implication.
We have to be careful in how we define "equality" in the above sentence, including class constraints that (may) have superclass equality constraints. I do think this would work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs