Foreign.Ptr instances. #10
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
| Yes, we only require a minor version bump according to the revised PVP. Would you mind adding a changelog.md entry mentioning those two instances? PS: the next version will be 1.4.2, not 1.4.3 ( |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
deepseq currently defines instances for
Foreign.C.Types, but not forPtrandFunPtr, both exported fromForeign.Ptr. This PR remediesthe situation.
I believe that the PVP does not require a major version bump here,
since the extra instances are not orphan instances. But feel free to
modify the "Since:" Haddock annotation accordingly.