It is cool but it should have a separate ticket. Richard can you do
Bottom line. Instead of getting in deeper, pull back. Do somthing that is simple to explain, predicatable, and simple to implement, even if it' a
#12088: Type/data family instances in kind checking -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: alexvieth | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: 8.2.1 Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 8.1 checker) | Resolution: | Keywords: TypeInType Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: GHC rejects | Unknown/Multiple valid program | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: #11348, #12239 | Differential Rev(s): Phab:D2272 Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by alexvieth): Replying to [comment:28 simonpj]: that? It's here: #11962 Simon, what do you think of my idea from comment 25? little less convenient. The proposed phasing annotations might be convenient for ghc developers but they'd be inconvenient and surprising for ghc users. I appreciate that, at the term level, I don't need to worry about the order of my definitions. I'd like the same to be true at type level if possible, and I think it is possible. I'm just not sure if it will be simple to implement. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12088#comment:31 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler