daylily
daylily
Sorry - I was mainly thinking about the situation for `ReaderT IO` (and my mind didn't work very well yesterday), where I would expect a `bracket` over the `m`. This...
(Guessing) For `MVar`s, it is possible that we implement `modify` with `takeMVar` and `putMVar` in combination which will be atomic, since any other thread trying to read will be blocked....
> a potential HasAtomicState What about introducing `get_` and `put_` as methods of `HasState` too, allowing different semantics of `get >>= put` and `state`? Three operations can all be atomic,...
Is this still open to PRs? I'd like to implement `hspec`-style predicates for `tasty-hunit`.
Yes, that was what I initially thought... the divide between `tasty-hunit` and `hunit` is really confusing. But then I read that this change was intentional (#230). Some years have passed...
Since @UnkindPartition has agreed that it is possible to switch back to `HUnit`, what is the opinion of other maintainers? @andreasabel @Bodigrim @ocharles @VictorCMiraldo @adamgundry If we reach a consensus,...
> and for re-exported datatypes it should be HUnit >= X.Y.Z && < X.Y.(Z+1) (because new instances can leak) I thought it's only the case when the instances are orphans,...
> @imkiva For example, we can make a "definition without body" a type error instead of a parse error This sounds very unlike a type error
Btw how does Arend solve this?
Can we have some fault-tolerant parser?