| >>>>>> Trouble is, what type does this have?
| >>>>>> f x = x {}
| >>
| >> Malcolm Wallace wrote:
| >>>>> f :: a -> a
| >>
| >> Ian Lynagh wrote:
| >>>> That wouldn't help the original poster, as it is incompatible with
| >>>> f :: Foo Clean -> Foo Dirty
There are several different things going on in this thread.
1. What does f x = x {} mean? The report
http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch3.html#x8-490003.15
says we should treat it like
f x = case x of
C1 a b -> C1 a b
C2 v -> C2 v
but if there are no fields how do we know what C1 and C2 are? The whole
section only makes sense if you know x's type. So Malcolm's suggestion of "f
:: forall a. a -> a" would be non-uniform with the non-empty cases.
When we *do* know the type then the above translation makes sense, and even
allows the
f :: Foo Clean -> Foo Dirty
type-change. Now two further issues arise:
2. When do we "know the type"? If the type is supposed to come from an
enclosing type signature, to specify the type system one would need to specify
the way that type annotations propagate. This isn't impossible (we do it for
higher-rank types), but it seems like a big hammer for this particular nut.
3. Edward wants to maintain sharing, meaning presumably that no fresh record
is allocated. That makes sense, but sadly System FC (GHC's intermediate
language) has no way to express it. We'd need some new axioms claiming that
forall ab. Foo a ~ Foo b. But that's a question for another time. Moreover,
it affects non-record types just as much.
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
