foo b@(Bar :: Foo [a]) = quux b
The pattern (p :: ty) checks that the thing being matched has type ‘ty’ and
THEN matches ‘p’. You expected it to FIRST match ‘p’, and THEN check that the
thing being matched has type ‘ty’. But that’s not the way it works.
e.g what about this
rats ([Just (Bar, True)] :: [Maybe (Foo [a], Bool)]) = …
Here the pattern to be matched is deep, with the Bar part deep inside. Do you
still expect it to work?
This would be hard to change. And I’m not sure it’d be an improvement.
Simon
From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Gabor Greif
Sent: 29 October 2017 17:43
To: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: Q: Types in GADT pattern match
Hi Devs!
I encountered a curious restriction with type signatures (tyvar bindings) in
GADT pattern matches.
GHC won't let me directly capture the refined type structure of GADT
constructors like this:
{-# Language GADTs, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
data Foo a where
Bar :: Foo [a]
foo :: Foo a -> ()
foo b@(Bar :: Foo [a]) = quux b
where quux :: Foo [b] -> ()
quux Bar = ()
I get:
test.hs:7:8: error:
• Couldn't match type ‘a1’ with ‘[a]’
‘a1’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
foo :: forall a1. Foo a1 -> ()
at test.hs:6:1-18
Expected type: Foo a1
Actual type: Foo [a]
To me it appears that the type refinement established by the GADT pattern match
is not accounted for.
Of course I can write:
foo :: Foo a -> ()
foo b@Bar | (c :: Foo [a]) <- b = quux c
where quux :: Foo [b] -> ()
quux Bar = ()
but it feels like a complicated way to do it...
My question is whether this is generally seen as the way to go or whether
ScopedTypeVariables coming from a GADT pattern match should be able to capture
the refined type. To me the latter seems more useful.
Just wanted to feel the waters before writing a ticket about this.
Cheers and thanks,
Gabor
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
