{"push_id":1324565806,"size":1,"distinct_size":1,"ref":"refs/heads/wip/T12618","head":"db9d1d6eaa69d8cd45ec406970558d5a8ae189a7","before":"e320acb126d4783561ecbcb347e205a4ebc7e206","commits":[{"sha":"db9d1d6eaa69d8cd45ec406970558d5a8ae189a7","author":{"name":"Joachim Breitner","email":"3b8e10480754ba93523db5dc4626a5f001e54bb7@joachim-breitner.de"},"message":"Introduce ConApp to Core (dead code as of yet)\n\nThis is the first step towards #12618: It adds the data constructor and\nthen fixes all problems due to incomplete patterns, essentially\npreparing the complete compiler for the eventual use of this variant.\nBecause no where a ConApp is created, this should not yet have any\neffect.\n\nCare is taken to not take shortcuts via the data con worker id, as\neventually, there will be no data con worker any more.\n\nThere are a few unclear spots, marked with \"TODO #12618\". Input is\nappreciated. These are currently:\n * CoreLint: Remove a check from the App case that will only be relevant\n   occurring in the ConApp case later\n * simplExprF1: This case became very easy. I might have overlooked\n   something else happening to arguments, as I read and simplified the\n   code that handled App. Second pairs of eyes welcome.\n * ruleCheck: There can be no rules attached to data constructors, can\n   there?\n * scExp: Can a datacon be in scSubstId?\n * dmdAnal: How to get the idStrictness equivalent of the worker?\n   Or is there never something useful to be said about the strictness\n   signature of an constructor? (Because strictness annotations are\n   taken care of by the wrapper?","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ghc/ghc/commits/db9d1d6eaa69d8cd45ec406970558d5a8ae189a7"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"ghc-mirror"}}