Newest at the top
| 2025-12-16 15:13:19 +0100 | jmcantrell | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-16 15:09:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I've complained about it before :p |
| 2025-12-16 15:09:08 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | see the "side note" here in the issue description https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/26016 |
| 2025-12-16 15:08:04 +0100 | <kuribas> | right |
| 2025-12-16 15:06:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | when not using that flag, the order is a bit more compressed, but there's still an ordering |
| 2025-12-16 15:06:43 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | or equivalently when using -fdefer-type-errors, because HLS passes that to GHC |
| 2025-12-16 15:06:24 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | kuribas: if you're using HLS, then parse error > name resolution errors in patterns > kind errors > type errors > constraint errors, iirc |
| 2025-12-16 15:04:05 +0100 | cubic_jpg | (~cubic_jpg@user/cubic-jpg:13603) cubic_jpg |
| 2025-12-16 15:01:27 +0100 | jmcantrell_ | jmcantrell |
| 2025-12-16 15:01:02 +0100 | jmcantrell_ | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell |
| 2025-12-16 14:55:56 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2025-12-16 14:53:40 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah I was wondering |
| 2025-12-16 14:53:25 +0100 | <kuribas> | Oh, there was another error somewhere else, which took precedence over the instance check apparently... |
| 2025-12-16 14:52:43 +0100 | <kuribas> | [exa]: I wrote it |
| 2025-12-16 14:52:32 +0100 | <[exa]> | kuribas: where did you get the `reachable` btw? |
| 2025-12-16 14:45:46 +0100 | Googulator54 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01cb-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-12-16 14:45:43 +0100 | Googulator67 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01cb-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-12-16 14:45:09 +0100 | rekahsoft | (~rekahsoft@70.51.99.245) rekahsoft |
| 2025-12-16 14:44:38 +0100 | <kuribas> | Or do you mean infer, by incur? |
| 2025-12-16 14:44:13 +0100 | <kuribas> | Yes, but it doesn't? |
| 2025-12-16 14:43:57 +0100 | wootehfoot | (~wootehfoo@user/wootehfoot) wootehfoot |
| 2025-12-16 14:43:03 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | this should definitely incur a 'Hashable a' constraint |
| 2025-12-16 14:42:42 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it's even easier to think about the fromList |
| 2025-12-16 14:41:30 +0100 | <kuribas> | tomsmeding: HashSet.fromList $ HashSet.toList nodes >>= (\n -> HashMap.lookupDefault [] n mapping) |
| 2025-12-16 14:41:09 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it's the source of reachable that is relevant here, not that of lookupDefault |
| 2025-12-16 14:35:22 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:dc21:3bf3:aa50:6091) |
| 2025-12-16 14:35:09 +0100 | <kuribas> | https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/unordered-containers-0.2.21/docs/src/Data.HashMap.Inte… |
| 2025-12-16 14:34:39 +0100 | <[exa]> | use the source tho |
| 2025-12-16 14:34:22 +0100 | <[exa]> | yeah I guess there it doesn't need the actual values, it just follows the hashes |
| 2025-12-16 14:33:23 +0100 | <kuribas> | unordered-containers |
| 2025-12-16 14:33:14 +0100 | <kuribas> | [exa]: HashMap.lookupDefault needs it though? |
| 2025-12-16 14:33:06 +0100 | <[exa]> | (depending on what kind of hash table is used ofc) |
| 2025-12-16 14:32:54 +0100 | <[exa]> | kuribas: which constraint would be missing there? I guess Hashable, but that might not be needed |
| 2025-12-16 14:29:59 +0100 | <kuribas> | Does GHC now infer constraints? |
| 2025-12-16 14:29:37 +0100 | <kuribas> | How can this work without constraints? reachable :: HashSet a -> HashMap a [a] -> HashSet a |
| 2025-12-16 14:25:01 +0100 | Psy-Q | (~psy-q@user/psy-q) Psy-Q |
| 2025-12-16 14:23:46 +0100 | myxos | (~myxos@2001:579:8380:f20:bd90:58c1:9ba1:835a) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-12-16 14:23:31 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2025-12-16 14:21:22 +0100 | <ski> | gentauro : yea (although not keywords) |
| 2025-12-16 14:21:17 +0100 | myxokephale | (~myxos@2001:579:8380:f20:f2c2:4b00:b76e:8530) myxokephale |
| 2025-12-16 14:15:35 +0100 | Googulator67 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01cb-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-12-16 14:15:12 +0100 | Googulator67 | (~Googulato@87-97-86-146.pool.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-12-16 14:05:51 +0100 | Googulator67 | (~Googulato@87-97-86-146.pool.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-12-16 14:05:33 +0100 | Googulator67 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01cb-3c18-a4bd-1bda-7c8b.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-12-16 14:04:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Quit: reboot) |
| 2025-12-16 14:02:01 +0100 | <kuribas> | I guess I just need to recurse, and consider visited nodes. |
| 2025-12-16 13:59:39 +0100 | <kuribas> | For example, Map a [a] -> Map a (Maybe Int), where Nothing means ther is a loop, n means it has n parents. |
| 2025-12-16 13:58:40 +0100 | <kuribas> | I guess no, because it will just loop? |
| 2025-12-16 13:58:34 +0100 | <kuribas> | Can you use lazyness to determine if a graph has loops? |
| 2025-12-16 13:57:08 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) |