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
| > | 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
| > | >
| > | > Ran
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
oaded within the last year" would be easier to
measure and good enough).
> | > As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecating
> | >
> | > Rank2Types
> | >
> | > PolymorphicComponents
> | >
> | > in favour of the single flag
> | >
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 chan
Dear maintainers of
bytestring
cabal
vector
time
dph
As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecating
Rank2Types
PolymorphicComponents
in favour of the single flag
RankNTypes
Could you update your packages to match? Until then we'll need to accep
Wed Oct 28 08:40:27 PDT 2009 simo...@microsoft.com
* Update tests following deprecating mdo
Ignore-this: ae1677b319abf946c5cc2a85f5c98aab
M ./tests/ghc-regress/arrows/should_fail/T2111.hs -1 +1
M ./tests/ghc-regress/arrows/should_fail/T2111.stderr -20 +10
M ./tests/ghc-regress
24 matches
Mail list logo
