error-messages VS pool-conduit

The GHC issue tracker or the error message improvement repo are two such places to get clarification (and potentially improve the message even if it turns out to be technically correct).

Indeed there is a ticket and the error message is somewhat better in 9.4 although it still doesn't mention the guard.

Note that the Num literal issue is tracked here and there seems to be a good suggestion to fix it: https://github.com/haskell/error-messages/issues/5#issuecomment-1040788806

I think it would be great to post this over at https://github.com/haskell/error-messages too so that we can track it more easily than here on Reddit.

Also, reminder that https://github.com/haskell/error-messages exists to track these kind of issues. Feel free to open an issue there.

If you are able to articulate what aspects of the error messages you find hard to understand, please do open an issue on https://github.com/haskell/error-messages. (Or reply here then I can open an issue for you if you don't have a github account.) It doesn't have to be a concrete suggestion for improvement, even just knowing which messages are bad can be useful.

Do you know about https://github.com/haskell/error-messages

The error message is at the least very unhelpful. Please report it on https://github.com/haskell/error-messages/issues/new

Please do open an issue at https://github.com/haskell/error-messages. The issue itself can be as simple as just summarizing what you wrote here, it doesn't have to immediately suggest a good alternative. That issue tracker is in the first place intended to document all error messages that Haskellers struggle with.

Do check out https://github.com/haskell/error-messages. We have a related discussion here: https://github.com/haskell/error-messages/issues/5, but I think perhaps a separate issue for this case would be good to have.

I understand that the "new" version of Persistent requires Servant Handler to be MonadUnliftIO which is not the case. I also understand that I am suppose to use acquireSqlConn somehowe (following this this), but I can't figure it out. Any ideas ?

I don't think there's any malicious intent. It seems pretty clear that the motivation here is to simplify the type checker considerably, which is a really good reason to do something. Heck, I've got an open issue for deleting a feature in persistent which (according to the lack of comments on the issue) only ever used by persistent's own test suite.

PR submitted: https://github.com/yesodweb/persistent/pull/1366 :)

Ha, I spotted a possible resource leak here. If stmtFinalize fail, then the connection won't be closed.

text Cloning b1e32adfe1da49cd9df997a13bd0c5b391486f5c from https://github.com/yesodweb/persistent.git No cabal file found for Repo from https://github.com/yesodweb/persistent.git, commit b1e32adfe1da49cd9df997a13bd0c5b391486f5c