2025/12/03

Newest at the top

2025-12-03 07:07:20 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2025-12-03 07:07:08 +0100poscat0x04(~poscat@user/poscat) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-12-03 07:06:26 +0100trickard_trickard
2025-12-03 07:05:30 +0100poscat(~poscat@user/poscat) poscat
2025-12-03 07:02:55 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-12-03 07:02:08 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2025-12-03 06:59:15 +0100Square(~Square@user/square) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2025-12-03 06:59:01 +0100Fijxu(~Fijxu@user/fijxu) fijxu
2025-12-03 06:57:41 +0100Fijxu(~Fijxu@user/fijxu) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-12-03 06:57:16 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-12-03 06:57:02 +0100Fijxu(~Fijxu@user/fijxu) fijxu
2025-12-03 06:56:10 +0100Square2(~Square4@user/square) Square
2025-12-03 06:55:35 +0100Fijxu(~Fijxu@user/fijxu) (Quit: XD!!)
2025-12-03 06:55:00 +0100 <probie> Since your problem seems to be at the type level, can you give an expression you want to type check, or not type check as appropriate?
2025-12-03 06:54:08 +0100 <probie> +1 for could not infer what you're trying to do. There's no need to be mean about it. You're obviously frustrated by something, type families are involved, you did something with singletons but it was the wrong path(?)
2025-12-03 06:49:08 +0100trickard_(~trickard@cpe-85-98-47-163.wireline.com.au)
2025-12-03 06:48:55 +0100trickard(~trickard@cpe-85-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-12-03 06:48:27 +0100takuan(~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be)
2025-12-03 06:46:29 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-12-03 06:45:56 +0100Googulator88(~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-479c-d9ec-010d-f188-ffcb.pool6.digikabel.hu)
2025-12-03 06:45:54 +0100Googulator45(~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-479c-d9ec-010d-f188-ffcb.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed)
2025-12-03 06:41:29 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-12-03 06:36:23 +0100michalz(~michalz@185.246.207.205)
2025-12-03 06:32:18 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> its an awful precedent and it makes our community inpenetrable and unfrinedly
2025-12-03 06:31:59 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> "its a burden of proof, i insist i dont understand the users query and by virtue of this its nonesense"
2025-12-03 06:31:07 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> its vexating
2025-12-03 06:31:05 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> instead of just this most vague assertion that you cannot seem to convey any degree of understanding at all of the situation described
2025-12-03 06:30:41 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> what specifically is it that you dont understand
2025-12-03 06:30:28 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> if you could maybe not just, stonewall me, and then, as soon as this is noticed, start accusing me of not talking to you in the prescribed manner
2025-12-03 06:30:15 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2025-12-03 06:30:01 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> im not trying to be rude
2025-12-03 06:29:48 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> ill guess you can just keep using a time machine to write a compiler without any focus grouping from the future
2025-12-03 06:29:39 +0100 <EvanR> without being rudely interrupted
2025-12-03 06:29:32 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> THANKS!
2025-12-03 06:29:22 +0100 <EvanR> I guess you can keep spamming the channel with nonsense
2025-12-03 06:29:21 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> i think "what im trying to do" is very much inferable from the discussion so far.
2025-12-03 06:28:50 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> EvanR: im sorry mate, im not enjoying you just talking past everything iv written
2025-12-03 06:28:33 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> like, show could resolve the type, but read would require something like an instance version of allowambiguous types
2025-12-03 06:28:16 +0100 <EvanR> what are you trying to do
2025-12-03 06:28:12 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> there was apparently something different about show and read
2025-12-03 06:28:01 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> i dont know why this type witness idea was even suggested
2025-12-03 06:27:19 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> ... >:-(
2025-12-03 06:27:11 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> > :-|
2025-12-03 06:26:38 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> > :-(
2025-12-03 06:25:57 +0100 <EvanR> there's nothing there
2025-12-03 06:25:43 +0100EvanRlooks at line 11
2025-12-03 06:25:40 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-12-03 06:23:15 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> then it is like "i see the instance exists, i will not require the constraint is explicitly specified, i cannot forsee an instance where the instance does not exist where then i would require it as a constraint"
2025-12-03 06:22:33 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> except in the case where no pattern matching takes place
2025-12-03 06:22:13 +0100 <haskellbridge> <zoil> which it _currently always says_