#15334: (forall x. c x, forall x. d x) is not equivalent to forall x. (c x, d x) -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: RyanGlScott | Owner: (none) Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.6.1 Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 8.5 checker) | Keywords: Resolution: | QuantifiedConstraints Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: GHC rejects | Unknown/Multiple valid program | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by goldfire): Yes. It looks to me like GHC isn't looking under tuples when expanding superclasses. Really, shouldn't we have `c1` and `c2` be superclasses of `(c1, c2)`? Then this would be all automatic. Or I've misunderstood something. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15334#comment:1 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler