- User Since
- Jan 8 2015, 11:07 PM (183 w, 2 d)
My two cents: I'm quite fine with including these explicit imports, especially since it uses functionality from outside Data.IORef itself.
- Final suggestions
Fri, Jul 13
Thank you for bailing me out :)
- Bring sanity back to the submodules
- Take three
- Take two
Wed, Jul 11
The GHC steering committee just approved https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/146, so I suppose it's time to land this in master proper.
Rebase on top of master
Are there any other things that need to be addressed here?
Sun, Jul 8
- Simon and Richard's suggestions
Fri, Jul 6
I'm not sure if Phabricator is a good place to have this discussion—I'd recommend bringing this up on Trac #9163, where this was originally decided.
I'm confused. Ptr is definitely not representationally roled in its argument, as explained here.
Thu, Jul 5
This commit appears to have broken the tcrun045 test:
- Accept new test output for T7939
I believe this patch is ready to go.
Wed, Jul 4
Tue, Jul 3
LGTM, assuming it validates.
Mon, Jul 2
Sat, Jun 30
What is the status of this? It looks like this patch landed in the ghc-8.6 branch in abd6622324733c67b05e0cbd0c8c3d12c6332f61, but it is not present on master.
- @simonpj's comment
Fri, Jun 29
- Add back the test I accidentally deleted
- Expand a Note
@simonpj, like this?
Thanks so much for picking this back up, @mgsloan! This looks really solid, so my suggestions are mostly minor. (Some of them are in the form of comments which don't necessarily require any action from you.)
Tue, Jun 26
- Address @simonpj's comment
Mon, Jun 25
Sun, Jun 24
Thu, Jun 21
Tue, Jun 19
- Remove XEqTy, too
Mon, Jun 18
I'm not sure why the Harbormaster build is failing (is the parent commit present in master?), but otherwise this LGTM.
Ah, that second edit does fix a good number of my comments.
Sun, Jun 17
Sat, Jun 16
Rebase yet again
Jun 15 2018
- Accept new test output
Rebase on top of master
...did you read the discussion earlier on this Diff? We had agreed that Richard should do this separately, since I haven't the slightest clue how to write up such a Note. As it stands, this ticket will remain in limbo forever if I'm required to write it.
Agreed. Should I just land this, then?
Jun 14 2018
Jun 12 2018
This deserves at least one test to ensure that the error message is formatted properly.
Jun 7 2018
Jun 6 2018
- @bgamari's wording suggestion
Jun 3 2018
This looks great. Thanks, @aherrmann!
- Remove unused function
This approach was abandoned in favor of D4744.
Jun 2 2018
Alright, this should be good to go now.
- Don't special-case Coercible
I would much rather print notice that k0 is free in forall (k :: k0). Proxy k -> Type and then report that whole kind somehow.
Rewrite the whole thing