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