Adam I'm very happy to hear that... good stuff. I'm under water with ICFP submissions (deadline Sat). Moreover I think it is clearly too later to put this into 7.8; RC1 is out and I expect RC2 any day. So I suggest we plan to merge after 7.8 is out. Are the wiki pages up to date? Records/OverloadedRecordFields Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Implementation Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan The first does not point to the latter two; "Plan" may mean "Design"... I feel some rationalisation may make sense Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Adam Gundry [mailto:adam@well-typed.com] | Sent: 24 February 2014 08:37 | To: Simon Peyton Jones | Subject: Re: OverloadedRecordFields | | Hi Simon, | | My OverloadedRecordFields branches[1,2,3] are up to date with HEAD as of | last Saturday. Validate on linux x86_64 reports only one failure, the | haddock.Cabal perf test, which might well be due to my Haddock changes, | and I will investigate. I'm not sure how to run the Haddock test suite? | | I am keen to get the code reviewed and into HEAD as soon as is | convenient, but I'm aware these are substantial changes, and don't want | to rush things. In particular, I would understand if you'd rather hold | them back until after the 7.8 final release. | | How would you like to proceed? | | Adam | | [1] https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc | [2] https://github.com/adamgundry/packages-base | [3] https://github.com/adamgundry/haddock | | | On 17/01/14 10:55, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: | > Yes that sounds ok, thanks. I'd prefer to have a write-up of what | goes wrong with the 2-parameter story, so that we don't forget. | > | > Simon | > | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: Adam Gundry [mailto:adam@well-typed.com] | > | Sent: 17 January 2014 10:15 | > | To: Simon Peyton Jones | > | Subject: OverloadedRecordFields | > | | > | Hi Simon, | > | | > | I'm conscious that things have gone off the boil a little wrt | > | OverloadedRecordFields, partially as a consequence of the delayed | > | 7.8 release but also my lack of time for other projects since | > | starting work for Well-Typed. With that in mind, I'd like to propose | > | a plan to get back on track: | > | | > | 1. Revert to the three-parameter story, where we have | > | | > | t ~ FldTy r f => Has r f t | > | | > | rather than | > | | > | Has r f. | > | | > | The two-parameter version generates significantly worse error | > | messages, and there are some other unresolved problems, so I'm not | > | sure it is worth the minor simplification. | > | | > | 2. Roll back some of the refactoring that I've struggled to get | > | right (in particular, trying to make the generated FldTy/UpdTy | > | axioms implicitTyThings). We can always revisit this in the future | though. | > | | > | 3. Merge HEAD into my branch: I suspect this will be a bit painful | > | by now, but presumably with 7.8 imminent there won't be many major | > | changes coming for a while? | > | | > | 4. Review the proposed changes with you and fix any show-stopping | > | problems. | > | | > | 5. Merge into HEAD after 7.8 is released. | > | | > | Does this sound plausible? I'm happy to Skype if you like. | > | | > | Cheers, | > | | > | Adam | > | | > | P.S. I'm not sure if Andrew Kennedy has mentioned it to you, but | > | Neil Ghani has got me some funding to work with them both on units | > | of measure for Haskell. We are still sorting out the details, but I | > | hope it might be possible to work on some kind of plugin mechanism | > | for GHC's constraint solver, along the lines that Iavor has been | > | investigating, if that would be of interest? | > | | > | -- | > | Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant | > | Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ | > | | | -- | Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant | Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/