Commit a2ce3afa authored by Simon Peyton Jones's avatar Simon Peyton Jones

Comments and white space only

parent 25f2d688
......@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ instance Applicative FlatM where
liftTcS :: TcS a -> FlatM a
liftTcS thing_inside
= FlatM $ const thing_inside
= FlatM $ const thing_inside
emitFlatWork :: Ct -> FlatM ()
-- See Note [The flattening work list]
......@@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ setEqRel new_eq_rel thing_inside
if new_eq_rel == fe_eq_rel env
then runFlatM thing_inside env
else runFlatM thing_inside (env { fe_eq_rel = new_eq_rel })
-- | Change the 'FlattenMode' in a 'FlattenEnv'.
setMode :: FlattenMode -> FlatM a -> FlatM a
setMode new_mode thing_inside
......
......@@ -227,11 +227,15 @@ revert to SimplCheck when going under an implication.
------------------------ So the plan is this -----------------------
* Step 0: typecheck the LHS and RHS to get constraints from each
* Step 1: Simplify the LHS and RHS constraints all together in one bag
We do this to discover all unification equalities
* Step 2: Zonk the ORIGINAL lhs constraints, and partition them into
the ones we will quantify over, and the others
* Step 2: Zonk the ORIGINAL (unsimplified) lhs constraints, to take
advantage of those unifications, and partition them into the
ones we will quantify over, and the others
See Note [RULE quantification over equalities]
* Step 3: Decide on the type variables to quantify over
......@@ -251,7 +255,7 @@ From the RULE we get
lhs-constraints: T Int ~ alpha
rhs-constraints: Bool ~ alpha
where 'alpha' is the type that connects the two. If we glom them
all together, and solve the RHS constraint first, we might solve
all together, and solve the RHS constraint first, we might solve
with alpha := Bool. But then we'd end up with a RULE like
RULE: f 3 |> (co :: T Int ~ Booo) = True
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment