Hi, Am Samstag, den 24.10.2015, 13:14 -0700 schrieb Evan Laforge:
WRT the "bound at" bits in "relevant bindings", I have no strong opinion. What about omitting them if they are in the same file as the main error? Or maybe they always are? I'm not totally clear how it chooses which bindings are relevant.
take one step at a time, and fix the issue you are having within #11014. Once that is through and merged, then (or in parallel to) trying to trim down the bound-at messages can be attempted. Am Samstag, den 24.10.2015, 22:30 +0200 schrieb MigMit:
At the very least, "bound at" should help IDEs (Emacs in particular) show exactly the right places.
an IDE that offers such a deep integration will hopefully not parse data meant for human consumption. We have had this discussion before (in the context of avoiding or merging multiple instances of the same error message, such as “foo not in scope”), and I continue to argue that the error messages printed by default should be tailored for the human reader. IDEs should ideally make use of something based on the GHC API. If that is not possible, then I’d advocate a flag, say "-fverbose-error- messages" or similar that includes all detail that might be relevant for an IDE, and maybe even in a nicer-to-parse format. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org