On 28/10/2011 13:21, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 09:12 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 26/10/2011 21:45, David Terei wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 26 October 2011 06:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
I don't understand this. Is it required that we mark Data.Trace as
unsafe? Why is it not just le
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 09:12 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 21:45, David Terei wrote:
> > Hi Duncan,
> >
> > On 26 October 2011 06:05, Duncan Coutts
> > wrote:
> >> I don't understand this. Is it required that we mark Data.Trace as
> >> unsafe? Why is it not just left unmarked?
> >>
>
On 26/10/2011 21:45, David Terei wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 26 October 2011 06:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
I don't understand this. Is it required that we mark Data.Trace as
unsafe? Why is it not just left unmarked?
My previous understanding was that Unsafe was for modules that don't
break the languag
Hi Duncan,
On 26 October 2011 06:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> I don't understand this. Is it required that we mark Data.Trace as
> unsafe? Why is it not just left unmarked?
>
> My previous understanding was that Unsafe was for modules that don't
> break the language but rather break the encapsulati
Hi David,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 15:17 -0700, David Terei wrote:
> Repository : ssh://darcs.haskell.org//srv/darcs/packages/base
>
> On branch : master
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/changeset/447448aff4803fa4b26ac941d5297aedcbb2dddf
> commit 447448aff4803fa4b26ac941d5297aedcbb2dddf
>
