Reconsider strictness annotations for GHC 8.2

[treeowl]

becb6c9 removed strictness annotations to work around a GHC bug. I believe that bug has been fixed as of 8.2. It would be very helpful if someone could put the strictness annotations back and test whether everything works as it should for 8.2.

[adinapoli]

Hey!

I will try to give it a go in the next week or so unless @jeannekamikaze have some spare capacity to it sooner. We should probably use CPP here to make sure we are not breaking pre 8.2 users.

[jeannekamikaze]

Does anyone care about OSX / homebrew? Seems that is stuck with ghc 8.0.2.

[treeowl]

People definitely care about OSX; it's one of GHC's top-priority platforms, so every GHC commit is tested on OSX and no release is made if it's believed to be broken on OSX. I couldn't say anything about homebrew; I don't know about OSX stuff myself.

…

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jeanne-Kamikaze ***@***.***> wrote: Does anyone care about OSX / homebrew? Seems that is stuck with ghc 8.0.2. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_dlN6aEJvR8UwSpaEOmcEihLTsUNks5sAZeEgaJpZM4NhySG> .

[jeannekamikaze]

Not sure we can do much. Even bleeding edge distros like Arch or OpenSUSE Tumbleweed are shipping ghc 8.0.x. The alternatives here seem to be to either manually get ghc from their website, or pass that flag to increase the tick count, none of which I think are very intuitive.

Thoughts?