Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-13 Thread Simon Marlow
On 13/05/2011 11:25, Ian Lynagh wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:33:23PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: I suppose sync-all pull would be a reasonable default, but it *must* be --ff-only, I don't want validate generating any commits. Doesn't that mean that it would only do anything if you have ma

Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-13 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:33:23PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > I suppose sync-all pull would be a reasonable default, but it *must* > be --ff-only, I don't want validate generating any commits. Doesn't that mean that it would only do anything if you have made no changes? Or do you mean it sho

Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-12 Thread Simon Marlow
On 12/05/2011 12:10, Ben Lippmeier wrote: On 12/05/2011, at 8:22 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: GHC hackers, Finally! I have committed the new representation for coercions! This is a pretty big patch touching a lot of files. If you are working on anything that intersects the type checker, it'

Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-12 Thread Ben Lippmeier
On 12/05/2011, at 9:17 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote: >> Perhaps "sh validate" should also run "./sync-all pull" and "./sync-all get" >> first? Can anyone think of a reason not to? This has also bitten me in the >> past. > > That w

Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-12 Thread Johan Tibell
Hi Ben, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote: > Perhaps "sh validate" should also run "./sync-all pull" and "./sync-all get" > first? Can anyone think of a reason not to? This has also bitten me in the > past. That would make it impossible to validate anything but HEAD, wouldn'

Re: New coercion representation

2011-05-12 Thread Ben Lippmeier
On 12/05/2011, at 8:22 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > GHC hackers, > > Finally! I have committed the new representation for coercions! This is a > pretty big patch touching a lot of files. If you are working on anything that > intersects the type checker, it'll affect you. Looks good! A

New coercion representation

2011-05-12 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
GHC hackers, Finally! I have committed the new representation for coercions! This is a pretty big patch touching a lot of files. If you are working on anything that intersects the type checker, it'll affect you. GHC now implements, rather closely, the system described in our paper "Practical

[commit: ghc] master's head updated: The final batch of changes for the new coercion representation (c8c2f6b)

2011-05-12 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
Repository : ssh://darcs.haskell.org//srv/darcs/ghc Branch 'master' now includes: fdf8656... This BIG PATCH contains most of the work for the New Coercion Representation 39bb1bd... Merge branch 'master' into ghc-new-co 15bea1b... Comment changes to satisfy

[commit: ghc] master: The final batch of changes for the new coercion representation (c8c2f6b)

2011-05-12 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
ton Jones Date: Thu May 12 11:09:28 2011 +0100 The final batch of changes for the new coercion representation * Fix bugs in the packing and unpacking of data constructors with equality predicates in their types * Remove PredCo altogether; instead, coercions betw

[commit: ghc] ghc-new-co: This BIG PATCH contains most of the work for the New Coercion Representation (fdf8656)

2011-04-19 Thread Simon Peyton Jones
mon Peyton Jones Date: Tue Apr 19 11:06:20 2011 +0100 This BIG PATCH contains most of the work for the New Coercion Representation See the paper "Practical aspects of evidence based compilation in System FC" * Coercion becomes a data type, distinct from Type