... | @@ -267,22 +267,22 @@ We could mangle selector names (using `$sel_foo_T` instead of `foo`) even when t |
... | @@ -267,22 +267,22 @@ We could mangle selector names (using `$sel_foo_T` instead of `foo`) even when t |
|
- Trouble with deriving instances in GHC.Generics (makes up un-renamed syntax using field `RdrName`s)
|
|
- Trouble with deriving instances in GHC.Generics (makes up un-renamed syntax using field `RdrName`s)
|
|
- Boot files that export record selectors not working
|
|
- Boot files that export record selectors not working
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Outstanding bugs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- typechecker/should_fail/tcfail102 (changed error message)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## To do
|
|
## To do
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Add `HsVarOut RdrName id` instead of `HsSingleRecFld` (or perhaps rename `HsVar` to `HsVarIn`)? This would also be useful to recall how the user referred to something.
|
|
- Add `HsVarOut RdrName id` instead of `HsSingleRecFld` (or perhaps rename `HsVar` to `HsVarIn`)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- This would also be useful to recall how the user referred to something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Haddock omits fields from HTML index and prints selector names in LaTeX exports list.
|
|
- Haddock omits fields from HTML index and prints selector names in LaTeX exports list and Hoogle output.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- When there is only one thing in scope, what should we do? See [discussion here](records/overloaded-record-fields/plan#scope-issues,-or,-why-we-miss-dot).
|
|
- When there is only one thing in scope, what should we do? See [discussion here](records/overloaded-record-fields/plan#scope-issues,-or,-why-we-miss-dot).
|
|
- Is the story about `-fwarn-unused-binds` okay?
|
|
- Is the story about `-fwarn-unused-binds` okay?
|
|
- Is `TcInstDcls.tcFldInsts` correct in its use of `simplifyTop` and assuming there will be no `ev_binds`?
|
|
- Is `TcInstDcls.tcFldInsts` correct in its use of `simplifyTop` and assuming there will be no `ev_binds`?
|
|
|
|
- Is it worth generating all the derived names early, to get rid of `tcg_dfun_n`?
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Consider syntactic sugar for `Upd` constraints.
|
|
- Consider syntactic sugar for `Upd` constraints.
|
|
- Improve unsolved `Accessor p f` error message where `p` is something silly?
|
|
- Improve unsolved `Accessor p f` error message where `p` is something silly?
|
|
- Consider defaulting `Accessor p` to `p = (->)`, and defaulting `Has r "f" t` constraints where there is only one datatype with a field `f` in scope.
|
|
- Consider defaulting `Accessor p` to `p = (->)`, and defaulting `Has r "f" t` constraints where there is only one datatype with a field `f` in scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Document the extension.
|
|
- Document the extension.
|
|
|
|
- Tidy up code, comment, remove unused imports. |