#9131: Experiment with a dedicated solver for Coercible -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: nomeata | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.2 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Difficulty: Unknown Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Comment (by simonpj): We are mostly arguing terminology here. Most solvers work by saying "let me take this goal, and solve it by breaking it up into sub-goals and solving those". That's exactly what the `Coercible`-specific code does here. You do not need to use that language of "instances" unless you want to. What the current solver does ''not'' do is ''search'', exploring many different paths to solving the goal. And indeed search is problemantic when combined with the need to infer a substitution for unification variables. Anyway, we don't need to discuss terminology! This ticket is really about whether a different solution strategy would be better. And thus far I don't see any candidates on the table. Simon -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9131#comment:5 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler