
On 19/05/2009 08:37, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
No, the shortcomings are not documented I'm afraid. It's a squishy question because when you add guards and view patterns it's undecidable whether patterns overlap or are exhaustive.
There are various open bugs regarding exhaustiveness/incompleteness though. Start here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/595 and follow the links in the comments. Also http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2395 for view patterns. Cheers, Simon
Still, GHC's current implementation is poor. It's a well-contained project that is awaiting a competent implementor. see http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ProjectSuggestions
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell- | users-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Robert Greayer | Sent: 19 May 2009 04:00 | Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: Re: Should exhaustiveness testing be on by default? | | On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Norman Ramsey
wrote: |> P.S. The exhaustiveness checker does need improvement... | | Is it documented somewhere what deficiencies the exhaustiveness | checker has (where it can report problems that don't exist or fails to | report problems that do...), and which deficiencies can't be resolved? | | | Rob | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users