Skip to content

Add rwhnf #22

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 17, 2016
Merged

Add rwhnf #22

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 17, 2016

Conversation

phadej
Copy link
Contributor

@phadej phadej commented Oct 11, 2016

Resolve #3

IMHO it's just easier to have it, even recent enough generics can get it right. Some people like being implicit (it would be cool if the assumption could be checked though).

@RyanGlScott
Copy link
Member

Now that we've got rwhnf, perhaps we should use it to cut out some boilerplate in the many NFData instance definitions in Control.DeepSeq? There's a whole bunch of instances that are of the form rnf !_ = () which we could replace with rnf = rwhnf.

@phadej
Copy link
Contributor Author

phadej commented Oct 25, 2016

will do if/when libraries@ discussion says this is ok to go in.

@RyanGlScott
Copy link
Member

For reference, the libraries mailing list discussion is here: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2016-October/027385.html

@RyanGlScott
Copy link
Member

Three weeks have passed since the mailing list discussion opened, and there were no objections, so I say go ahead and make the changes in #22 (comment). I can merge after that.

@phadej
Copy link
Contributor Author

phadej commented Nov 17, 2016

@RyanGlScott updated this.

@hvr hvr modified the milestone: 1.4.3 Nov 17, 2016
@RyanGlScott RyanGlScott merged commit d496ce4 into haskell:master Nov 17, 2016
@phadej phadej deleted the rwhnf branch November 17, 2016 20:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants