Pattern matching on `undefined` is not like pattern match failure. Single-constructor types are only special if they're unlifted: `newtype` and GHC's unboxed tuples are the only examples I know of, and you can't use unboxed tuples in this context.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org> wrote: > Are you sure that desugaring works this way? If yes, this should be > considered a bug and be fixed, I would say. It is very illogical. > > All the best, > Wolfgang > > Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2015, 16:23 +0100 schrieb David Turner: >> AIUI the point about ⊥ and (⊥, ⊥) being different doesn't matter here: >> a bind for a single-constructor datatype never desugars in a way that >> uses fail (which isn't to say that it can't be undefined) >> >> For instance: >> >> runErrorT (do { (_,_) <- return undefined; return () } :: ErrorT String IO >> ()) >> >> throws an exception, even though the bind is in ErrorT where fail just >> returns left: >> >> runErrorT (do { fail "oops"; return () } :: ErrorT String IO ()) >> >> => Left "oops" >> >> Hope that helps, and hope I understand correctly! >> >> David >> >> >> On 11 June 2015 at 16:08, Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org> >> wrote: >> > Hi David, >> > >> > thank you very much for this proposal. I think having fail in Monad is >> > just plain wrong, and I am therefore very happy to see it being moved >> > out. >> > >> > I have some remarks, though: >> > >> >> A class of patterns that are conditionally failable are `newtype`s, >> >> and single constructor `data` types, which are unfailable by >> >> themselves, but may fail if matching on their fields is done with >> >> failable paterns. >> > >> > The part about single-constructor data types is not true. A >> > single-constructor data type has a value ⊥ that is different from >> > applying the data constructor to ⊥’s. For example, ⊥ and (⊥, ⊥) are two >> > different values. Matching ⊥ against the pattern (_, _) fails, matching >> > (⊥, ⊥) against (_, _) succeeds. So single-constructor data types are not >> > different from all other data types in this respect. The dividing line >> > really runs between data types and newtypes. So only matches against >> > patterns C p where C is a newtype constructor and p is unfailable should >> > be considered unfailable. >> > >> >> - Applicative `do` notation is coming sooner or later, `fail` might >> >> be useful in this more general scenario. Due to the AMP, it is >> >> trivial to change the `MonadFail` superclass to `Applicative` >> >> later. (The name will be a bit misleading, but it's a very small >> >> price to pay.) >> > >> > I think it would be very misleading having a MonadFail class that might >> > have instances that are not monads, and that this is a price we should >> > not pay. So we should not name the class MonadFail. Maybe, Fail would be >> > a good name. >> > >> >> I think we should keep the `Monad` superclass for three main reasons: >> >> >> >> - We don't want to see `(Monad m, MonadFail m) =>` all over the place. >> > >> > But exactly this will happen if we change the superclass of (Monad)Fail >> > from Monad to Applicative. So it might be better to impose a more >> > light-weight constraint in the first place. Functor m might be a good >> > choice. >> > >> > All the best, >> > Wolfgang >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ghc-devs mailing list >> > ghc-devs@haskell.org >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > librar...@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs