GHC rewrite rules for class operations & laws

[Simon Peyton Jones]

|  Indeed, we could eliminate several hundred lines of boilerplate in GHC if we
|  could lift this restriction.

Can you be more specific?  Which hundreds of lines?

Do add this info to the ticket when Gorge makes it.  Or just make one!

Simon

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: Ben Gamari [mailto:ben at smart-cactus.org]
|  Sent: 29 December 2016 14:50
|  To: Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net>; George Colpitts
|  <george.colpitts at gmail.com>
|  Cc: glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org; Simon Peyton Jones
|  <simonpj at microsoft.com>
|  Subject: Re: GHC rewrite rules for class operations & laws
|  
|  On December 28, 2016 7:27:20 PM EST, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
|  >Hi, George. Yes, please do add a task, hopefully to serve as a
|  >conversation anchor until the issues and path forward are clearer. From
|  >my perspective, class methods are among the most natural and useful
|  >candidates for rewrite rules, since they tend to have associated laws,
|  >many (but not all) of which are helpful in optimization. The
|  >alternative I know (and am using) is fairly inconvenient: replicating
|  >entire APIs just in order to delay inlining long enough to apply rules.
|  >
|  Indeed, we could eliminate several hundred lines of boilerplate in GHC if we
|  could lift this restriction.
|  
|  Cheers,
|  
|  - Ben
|