Newest at the top
| 2025-12-05 23:36:36 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@172.222.148.214) peterbecich |
| 2025-12-05 23:35:51 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 23:32:22 +0100 | Anarchos | (~Anarchos@91-161-254-16.subs.proxad.net) Anarchos |
| 2025-12-05 23:26:27 +0100 | Wygulmage | (~Wygulmage@user/Wygulmage) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 23:25:10 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 23:21:06 +0100 | takuan | (~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 23:20:35 +0100 | mikess | (~sam@user/mikess) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 23:20:04 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 23:11:06 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Wygulmage: what if you just add the Ord constraint on the LHS of the RULE? |
| 2025-12-05 23:10:31 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | [exa]: it rather sounds like they have `class C a where delete :: a -> a` (guessing some type for delete here) and an `instance Ord a => C (Set a) where delete = ...`, and they want to have a RULE that rewrites `delete :: Set a -> Set a` to some function with type `Ord a => Set a -> Set a` |
| 2025-12-05 23:09:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 23:08:13 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 23:06:45 +0100 | Anarchos | (~Anarchos@91-161-254-16.subs.proxad.net) (Quit: Vision[]: i've been blurred!) |
| 2025-12-05 23:06:34 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 23:06:01 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 23:05:17 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 23:05:08 +0100 | sindu | (~sindu@2.148.32.207.tmi.telenormobil.no) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 23:04:43 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 23:00:15 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 22:59:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | is there a typeclass instance that says "everything everywhere all at once" ? |
| 2025-12-05 22:58:22 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:58:22 +0100 | mhatta | (~mhatta@www21123ui.sakura.ne.jp) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:58:13 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@172.222.148.214) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:58:06 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 22:57:22 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:53:15 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:48:40 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 22:45:27 +0100 | <[exa]> | Wygulmage: nevertheless, wouldn't the example with genericLookup/Int here https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/rewrite_rules.html#specialisation work for that case without much issues? |
| 2025-12-05 22:44:49 +0100 | Anarchos | (~Anarchos@91-161-254-16.subs.proxad.net) Anarchos |
| 2025-12-05 22:43:16 +0100 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:da0:5a47:caff:fe78:33db) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:42:06 +0100 | michalz | (~michalz@185.246.207.203) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:41:12 +0100 | <[exa]> | Wygulmage: that sounds like trying to make a typeclass instance that says "everything except this one" ? |
| 2025-12-05 22:40:48 +0100 | trickard_ | trickard |
| 2025-12-05 22:39:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:38:54 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 22:37:13 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:34:51 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 22:34:33 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
| 2025-12-05 22:23:45 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:18:50 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 22:13:41 +0100 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-05 22:08:40 +0100 | <Wygulmage> | class instance. |
| 2025-12-05 22:08:39 +0100 | <Wygulmage> | Is it possible to use a rewrite rule on a class-generic function for one instance that has a constraint? For example an instance `Ord a => C (Set a)` and a function `delete` constrained by `C` but not `Ord a`. I want to rewrite `delete` (of the correct type) to `Data.Set.delete`, but the rule can't seem to pull in the `Ord` constraint from the |
| 2025-12-05 22:07:41 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-12-05 22:05:10 +0100 | wbooze | (~wbooze@cgn-195-14-220-195.nc.de) Inline |
| 2025-12-05 22:04:16 +0100 | Wygulmage | (~Wygulmage@user/Wygulmage) Wygulmage |
| 2025-12-05 22:03:03 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-12-05 22:00:55 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@172.222.148.214) peterbecich |
| 2025-12-05 21:52:26 +0100 | mikess | (~sam@user/mikess) mikess |
| 2025-12-05 21:52:10 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |