I forget if I'm the contributor Ben mentions below, but regardless: NoExt is used in two separate ways within GHC. It's used both as the extension of a sum (new constructor) and the extension of a product (new field in a constructor). But the identity for sum is different than the identity for products. To me, it makes good sense for the NoExt used as a product extension (new field) to have the 1 trivial inhabitant (thus forming the identity for products), but the NoExt used as a sum extension (new constructor) to have 0 inhabitants (thus forming the identity for sums). Clearly, one of these will need a new name.
Thanks, Richard > On Jun 24, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > > Hi Shayan, > > During code review a contributor asked about a TTG extension point. > While answering his question I realized I didn't have a good explanation > for why NoExt is inhabited; as far as I can tell it should rather be > unhabited. > > If there is a reason for this then can you: > > 1. describe why this is so in #16863 [1] > 2. open an MR documenting the reason in Note [Trees that Grow]. > > If not, perhaps we should consider changing it; the current state of > things is a bit awkward. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > > [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/16863 > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
