I'd prefer to use TypeFamilyDependencies right now, and keep using that same flag (not a new one) when we extend what "dependencies" means.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Jan Stolarek [mailto:jan.stolarek@p.lodz.pl]
| Sent: 12 January 2016 08:44
| To: Richard Eisenberg
| Cc: Simon Peyton Jones ; GHC developers
| Subject: Re: Injective type families
|
| > I'm joining this conversation late, but I favor TypeFamilyDependencies over
| > InjectiveTypeFamilies. We use the annotations for things other than
| > injectivity! For example,
| >
| > > type family Plus a b = r | r a -> b, r b -> a
| >
| > is not injective under any common understanding of the word.
| But that is not implemented yet and thus will not make it into GHC 8.0.
| Following earlier
| argumentation, once we have generalized injectivity we should put it into a
| separate extension.
| So I'd say we stick with InjectiveTypeFamilies for currently implemented
| features and put the new
| ones in TypeFamilyDependencies.
|
| That said, I don't like the idea that every addition to a language extension
| means creating a
| separate language extension.
|
| Janek
|
| ---
| Politechnika Łódzka
| Lodz University of Technology
|
| Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata.
| Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez
| pomyłkę
| prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie.
|
| This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual
| to whom it is addressed.
| If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in
| error,
| please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
