6 Feb
2006
6 Feb
'06
7:21 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 12:07:54PM +0000, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:17AM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Your (1-Ross) ensures that every variable in the assertion does occur in the head. But I'm not sure that the size-reduction argument is watertight in the presence of fundeps. (E.g. in example 15 it *looks* as if the size goes down, but it doesn't.)
Hmm, "improvement". But this is a problem for the GHC rules too, isn't it?
Sorry, wrong example (I was thinking of example 6). Example 15 would be ruled out, as the proposed rules ignore functional dependencies. I think this is a bug in GHC, and have already filed it as #681.