| I was wondering whether there would be any concerns against redefining the
| above type synonyms into newtypes? Either each one of the above gets its own
| newtype wrapper or new phase-describing wrappers:
|
| newtype PostTc a = PostTc a deriving (Eq, Ord, Show, Functor)
| newtype PostRn a =
On 28/01/2010 00:26, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
|> type PostTcType = Maybe Type
|>
|> Now you're representing the data that isn't there by a Nothing, rather
|> than a _|_. You could even newtype it and have fromPostTcType be
|> equivalent to fromJust with a helpful error about the ordering. It
| > type PostTcType = Maybe Type
| >
| > Now you're representing the data that isn't there by a Nothing, rather
| > than a _|_. You could even newtype it and have fromPostTcType be
| > equivalent to fromJust with a helpful error about the ordering. It
| > will be slower than what's currently there,
Hi
> I know Uniplate. But there are two issues:
>
> 1. SYB will start using the table trick soon from what I hear, so I hope it
> won't be too slow.
That would be cool - although I do wonder how it can be done with the
very general type of everywhere/everything. If you restrict the types
(like
On 27 Jan 2010, at 18:17, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi
>>> | These have always distressed me. Would it be feasible to refactor so
>>> | that this isn't necessary, e.g.
>>> |
>>> | typecheck :: HsSyn Name () -> HsSyn Name PostTcInfo
>
>> The problem is that these annotations tend to be construct
Hi
>> | These have always distressed me. Would it be feasible to refactor so
>> | that this isn't necessary, e.g.
>> |
>> | typecheck :: HsSyn Name () -> HsSyn Name PostTcInfo
> The problem is that these annotations tend to be constructor-specific. You
> might get it to work with GADTs, but I
On 27 Jan 2010, at 15:12, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> | I was wondering whether there would be any concerns against redefining the
> | above type synonyms into newtypes? Either each one of the above gets its
> own
> | newtype wrapper or new phase-describing wrappers:
> |
> | newtype PostTc
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:38:25PM +, Thomas Schilling wrote:
>
> The Haskell AST used by GHC unfortunately has a few fields that are only
> defined after certain phases have been run. For example:
>
> PostTcType, PostTcExpr -- only defined after type checking
> SyntaxExpr, Fixity -
Hi,
[This question is probably mostly for Simon PJ.]
The Haskell AST used by GHC unfortunately has a few fields that are only
defined after certain phases have been run. For example:
PostTcType, PostTcExpr -- only defined after type checking
SyntaxExpr, Fixity -- only defined after ren
