Re: Proposal: Make Eq type class single method
Hécate <[email protected]> Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:21:45 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.haskell.libraries |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Joachim, Thank you for this summary of your findings. In echo with Tom Ellis' response, I too find the added benefits a tad too slim when compared to the changes that will have to be undertaken by package authors who have (/=) defined in their instances. Let's focus on tackling problems that have plagued us for way too long instead! :) Cheers, Hécate Le 25/10/2021 à 11:04, Joachim Breitner a écrit : > Hi, > > current status of this train of thought: > > * Most people here were sympathetic about the removal of (/=) from Eq. > > * It would break a bit of code, but with an easy and backward- > compatible fix. > > * The GHC implementation is straight forward: > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/6793 > > * There is _no_ measurable performance benefit in real-world-code. > A few of GHC’s perf regression tests benefit slightly: > > T12234(optasm) ghc/alloc 57633544.0 55409592.0 -3.9% GOOD > T18304(normal) ghc/alloc 87566616.0 83503296.0 -4.6% GOOD > T783(normal) ghc/alloc 389240752.0 377482584.0 -3.0% GOOD > T1969(normal) ghc/max 19869024.0 19071720.0 -4.0% > T11545(normal) ghc/max 35580832.0 33828936.0 -4.9% > > * There is a problem with rules matching on class ops of single method > classes: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20535 > I consider this a GHC bug that needs to be fixed anyways, so let’s > assume for now it will be fixed one way or another before Eq becomes > a single method class. > > With this, I’d like to formally bring this change before the CLC, and > ask for its support for (or explicit rejection of) this change. > > Cheers, > Joachim > > -- Hécate ✨ 🐦: @TechnoEmpress IRC: Hecate WWW: https://glitchbra.in RUN: BSD _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries