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.)
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of David
| Feuer
| Sent: 24 February 2017 00:30
| To: Joachim Breitner
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| 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?
|
| Thanks,
| David Feuer
| Well-Typed LLP
| _______________________________________________
| ghc-devs mailing list
| ghc-devs@haskell.org
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell
| .org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-
| devs&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C56fda079ff6d40e055fa08d45c4c46
| 0c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636234930063764323&sdata=B9Z
| ECrVpzUxDMH9EDVMMULa7VysoC6ZirvairVe0ILk%3D&reserved=0
