For good or ill, Simon doesn't want RULES for datacons. T12689 has to be
removed (leaving T12689a, which is still fine). But I don't know enough about
what you're doing with T12689broken to know how to make it express the right
idea after this change. Can you please advise?
NB: the actual ticket Trac #12689 is /not/ about rules /for/ data cons. It's about rules that /match/ datacons. It's only the latter I object to. The test T12689 sort of snuck in there under false pretences :-).
Also I'm not permanently set against rules for datacons. It's just that I think there are equally good ways to achieve the same thing, and it smells wrong to me: we should hesitate before making passive data into active stuff. (And I think we have more urgent things to do.)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David
| Sent: 24 February 2017 00:30
| To: Joachim Breitner <[hidden email]>
| Cc: [hidden email] | Subject: Datacon RULES test
| For good or ill, Simon doesn't want RULES for datacons. T12689 has to be
| removed (leaving T12689a, which is still fine). But I don't know enough
| about what you're doing with T12689broken to know how to make it express the
| right idea after this change. Can you please advise?
| David Feuer
| Well-Typed LLP
| ghc-devs mailing list
| [hidden email] | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell | .org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs