Newest at the top
| 2025-03-27 00:52:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-27 00:48:45 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> I get why one would want to rebind it, but why removing it? yin |
| 2025-03-27 00:45:49 +0100 | aetepe | (~aetepe@46.154.235.16) aetepe |
| 2025-03-27 00:45:08 +0100 | malte | (~malte@mal.tc) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:43:43 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01d5-c415-995d-99e3-7810.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-03-27 00:43:30 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01d5-c415-995d-99e3-7810.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-03-27 00:41:18 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:41:02 +0100 | Miroboru | (~myrvoll@178-164-114.82.3p.ntebredband.no) Miroboru |
| 2025-03-27 00:40:48 +0100 | <geekosaur> | you dreamed it, I think. maybe you were thinking of RebindableSyntax translating it into a user-supplied ifThenElse function? |
| 2025-03-27 00:40:35 +0100 | <yin> | or was it an april's fool joke? |
| 2025-03-27 00:39:35 +0100 | <yin> | did i dream that we could turn off if ... then ... else syntax? |
| 2025-03-27 00:39:34 +0100 | Miroboru | (~myrvoll@178-164-114.82.3p.ntebredband.no) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:36:39 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-27 00:36:27 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-01d5-c415-995d-99e3-7810.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-03-27 00:36:12 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@85-238-67-46.pool.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-03-27 00:35:13 +0100 | lxsameer | (~lxsameer@Serene/lxsameer) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:32:04 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) dolio |
| 2025-03-27 00:30:26 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-03-27 00:27:30 +0100 | aetepe | (~aetepe@46.154.235.16) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-27 00:26:44 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) dolio |
| 2025-03-27 00:26:04 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:21:13 +0100 | aetepe | (~aetepe@46.154.235.16) aetepe |
| 2025-03-27 00:20:56 +0100 | aetepe | (~aetepe@188.119.22.83) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:20:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-27 00:15:20 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) (Quit: ZNC 1.9.1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2025-03-27 00:09:33 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-03-27 00:05:59 +0100 | Sgeo | (~Sgeo@user/sgeo) Sgeo |
| 2025-03-27 00:03:53 +0100 | <jle`> | at the cost of a layer of indentation :') |
| 2025-03-27 00:03:34 +0100 | <jle`> | i have been getting around it by manually >>=-ing at the points that cause issues |
| 2025-03-27 00:03:07 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-03-27 00:01:14 +0100 | malte | (~malte@mal.tc) malte |
| 2025-03-27 00:00:56 +0100 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) ChaiTRex |
| 2025-03-27 00:00:41 +0100 | <jle`> | one using NamedFieldPuns/RecordWildCards and one with existential types/type abstractions |
| 2025-03-27 00:00:33 +0100 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-03-27 00:00:05 +0100 | <jle`> | ah then i should probably file a report, i've run into two different ado related bugs recently i think |
| 2025-03-26 23:59:21 +0100 | <geekosaur> | 9.6 I think both accepts let and doesn't have any ApplicativeDo bugs I'm aware of? |
| 2025-03-26 23:58:54 +0100 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 23:58:42 +0100 | <jle`> | i'm on 9.6 |
| 2025-03-26 23:57:30 +0100 | j1n37- | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37 |
| 2025-03-26 23:57:27 +0100 | <jle`> | hm that doesn't affect the error so it makes me think i misdiagnosed the problem |
| 2025-03-26 23:54:58 +0100 | <geekosaur> | (recently as in some ghc9.x version iirc) |
| 2025-03-26 23:54:22 +0100 | <geekosaur> | until fairly recently, ApplicativeDo unnecessarily bailed on a `do` with a `let` |
| 2025-03-26 23:54:03 +0100 | <geekosaur> | yeh |
| 2025-03-26 23:53:42 +0100 | <jle`> | hm like just add `let _dontUse = ()` somewhere? |
| 2025-03-26 23:52:53 +0100 | <geekosaur> | use `let` somewhere? |
| 2025-03-26 23:51:11 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 23:51:03 +0100 | <jle`> | but i'd still like ado on for other blocks in the file |
| 2025-03-26 23:50:52 +0100 | <jle`> | is there a nice way to force do notation to be monadic and not ApplicativeDo? i'm on an older version of ghc and there are some applicative do bugs that are being unnecessarily triggered, would be nice to just guarantee things use monadic do |
| 2025-03-26 23:50:30 +0100 | tabaqui | (~tabaqui@167.71.80.236) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 23:47:52 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |