Fair point. So you are saying it'd be ok to say
data T (.->) = MkT (Int .-> Int)
where (.+) is a type variable? Leaving ordinary (+) available for type
constructors.
If we are inverting the convention I wonder whether we might invert it
completely and use ":" as the "I'm different" herald as we do for *constructor*
operators in terms. Thus
data T (:->) = MkT (Int :-> Int)
That seems symmetrical, and perhaps nicer than having a new notation.
In terms In types
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
a Term variable Type variable
A Data constructor Type constructor
+ Term variable operator Type constructor operator
:+ Data constructor operator Type variable operator
Any other opinions?
Simon
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Conal Elliott
Sent: 06 September 2012 23:59
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: GHC users
Subject: Re: Type operators in GHC
Oh dear. I'm very sorry to have missed this discussion back in January. I'd be
awfully sad to lose pretty infix notation for type variables of kind * -> * ->
*. I use them extensively in my libraries and projects, and pretty notation
matters.
I'd be okay switching to some convention other than lack of leading ':' for
signaling that a symbol is a type variable rather than constructor, e.g., the
*presence* of a leading character such as '.'.
Given the increasing use of arrow-ish techniques and of type-level programming,
I would not classify the up-to-7.4 behavior as a "foolish consistency",
especially going forward.
-- Conal
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear GHC users
As part of beefing up the kind system, we plan to implement the "Type
operators" proposal for Haskell Prime
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/InfixTypeConstructors
GHC has had type operators for some kind, so you can say
data a :+: b = Left a | Right b
but you can only do that for operators which start with ":".
As part of the above wiki page you can see the proposal to broaden this to ALL
operators, allowing
data a + b = Left a | Right b
Although this technically inconsistent the value page (as the wiki page
discussed), I think the payoff is huge. (And "A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds", Emerson)
This email is (a) to highlight the plan, and (b) to ask about flags. Our
preferred approach is to *change* what -XTypeOperators does, to allow type
operators that do not start with :. But that will mean that *some* (strange)
programs will stop working. The only example I have seen in tc192 of GHC's test
suite
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
comp :: Arrow (~>) => (b~>c, c~>d)~>(b~>d)
comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
Written more conventionally, the signature would look like
comp :: Arrow arr => arr (arr b c, arr c d) (arr b d)
comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
or, in infix notation
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
comp :: Arrow arr => (b `arr` c, c `arr` d) `arr` (b `arr` d)
comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
But tc192 as it stands would become ILLEGAL, because (~>) would be a type
*constructor* rather than (as now) a type *variable*. Of course it's easily
fixed, as above, but still a breakage is a breakage.
It would be possible to have two flags, so as to get
- Haskell 98 behaviour
- Current TypeOperator behaviuor
- New TypeOperator behaviour
but it turns out to be Quite Tiresome to do so, and I would much rather not.
Can you live with that?
http://chrisdone.com/posts/2010-10-07-haskelldb-and-typeoperator-madness.html
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
