On 23/10/12 09:50, I wrote:
Sorry, you're right. It means "I require at most rank-2 types"
Program A is marked "Rank2Types" and not "RankNTypes" and uses only
rank-1 types.
Program B is marked "Rank2Types" and not "RankNTypes" and uses only
rank-1 & rank-2 types.
Program C is marked "Rank2Type
On 23/10/12 02:36, Simon Marlow wrote:
I think it means "I require at least rank-2 types".
To clarify, I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program marked
"Rank2Types" and incorrectly not marked "RankNTypes" when it actually
requires rank-n types.
I don't think I understand why you would wa
| > It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean "I require at
| > least
| > rank-2 types" or "I only use rank-2 types"?
|
| I think it means "I require at least rank-2 types".
|
| To clarify, I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program marked
| "Rank2Types" and incorrectly not
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> Do you mean “silently and forever”? Deprecation simply means that
> everything continues to work, but you get a little nudge to change. Isn’t
> that what it’s for? If you treat deprecation as equivalent to error, then
> there isn’t m
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> Dear maintainers of
>
> bytestring
>
> cabal
>
> vector
>
> time
>
> dph
>
Hi, Simon -
How did you come up with this list? It is missing the vast majority of
users of Rank2Types.
Most people embed languag
Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: johan.tib...@gmail.com; Don Stewart; Duncan Coutts; Roman Leshchinskiy;
ash...@semantic.org; cabal-de...@haskell.org; Ben Lippmeier; Manuel M T
Chakravarty; cvs-ghc@haskell.org
Subject: Re: deprecating
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
mailto
On 22/10/2012 19:15, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
On 22.10.2012 11:05, Johan Tibell wrote:
I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program incorrectly marked
"Rank2Types" when it actually requires rank-n types?
It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean "I require at least
rank-2 types" or "
On 23/10/2012 09:04, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
Do you mean “silently and forever�?
I think that's what I mean, yes.
As Johan notes, many of us run our continuous builds of our packages with
-Wall -Werro
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
>
>
>> Do you mean âsilently and foreverâ?
>>
>
> I think that's what I mean, yes.
>
> As Johan notes, many of us run our continuous builds of our packages with
> -Wall -Werror in order to keep them as clean
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> On 22.10.2012 11:05, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
>>> I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program incorrectly marked
>>> "Rank2Types" when it actually requires rank-n types?
>>
>> It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean "I require at
>> least
>> rank-2 types" or "I o
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
>> Do you mean “silently and forever”? Deprecation simply means that
>> everything continues to work, but you get a little nudge to change. Isn’t
>> that what it’s for? If you
On 22.10.2012 11:05, Johan Tibell wrote:
I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program incorrectly marked
"Rank2Types" when it actually requires rank-n types?
It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean "I require at
least
rank-2 types" or "I only use rank-2 types"?
I think it mea
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program incorrectly marked
> "Rank2Types" when it actually requires rank-n types?
It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean "I require at least
rank-2 types" or "I only use rank-2 types"?
_
On 22.10.2012 09:52, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
The trouble is that it's painful to check that a program uses rank-2
*only*, which is what you might naively think of the flag. So rather
than
fiddle about with distinctions that no one really cares about, the
idea
is to abolish the distinction.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> But if the will of the masses is to silently and forever make
> Rank2Types=RankNtypes (documented of course), that's ok with me. It just
> seems odd. I thought that's what deprecation was *for*.
>
An alternative would be to have a mec
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> Do you mean “silently and forever”?
>
I think that's what I mean, yes.
As Johan notes, many of us run our continuous builds of our packages with
-Wall -Werror in order to keep them as clean as possible. Introducing a
deprecation thus
| -Original Message-
| > | From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
| > | Sent: 19 October 2012 17:39
| > | To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| > | Cc: Don Stewart; Duncan Coutts; Roman Leshchinskiy;
| > | ash...@semantic.org; cabal-de...@haskell.org; Ben Lippmeier; Manuel
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> Do you mean “silently and forever”? Deprecation simply means that
> everything continues to work, but you get a little nudge to change. Isn’t
> that what it’s for? If you treat deprecation as equivalent to error, then
> there isn’t m
l.org; Ben Lippmeier; Manuel M T
| Chakravarty; cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: deprecating
|
| Hi Simon,
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
| wrote:
| > As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecating
| >
| > Rank2Types
| >
| > PolymorphicComponents
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:53:32PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> See my response on http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/6032#comment:6
> Not sure what the best path is here
FWIW, I agree with Simon.
And even if Rank2Types /is/ left as a permanent alias, I don't see a
reason not to mak
Leshchinskiy;
| ash...@semantic.org; cabal-de...@haskell.org; Ben Lippmeier; Manuel M T
| Chakravarty; cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: deprecating
|
| Hi Simon,
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
| wrote:
| > As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecat
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecating
>
> Rank2Types
>
> PolymorphicComponents
>
> in favour of the single flag
>
> RankNTypes
I'm fine with making the changes to cabal, but before I do, I
22 matches
Mail list logo
