I'm not sure when this "feature" was added, but I'm pretty sure that my original implementation of associated types was exactly what you describe in the solution. Or did I miss anything?
I think you are right. I think I added the new stuff in a fit of enthusiasm one day, a fit that I am now regretting! But I'm just checking that no one has meanwhile become addicted to it. Simon From: Manuel Chakravarty [mailto:mchakrava...@me.com] Sent: 24 June 2014 08:54 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: GHC List; ghc-d...@haskell.org Subject: Re: Associated type instances Simon, I'm not sure when this "feature" was added, but I'm pretty sure that my original implementation of associated types was exactly what you describe in the solution. Or did I miss anything? Manuel Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>>: Friends I want to make withdraw (or, rather, simplify) a little-known feature in GHC, but before I do so I want to check that no one is going to have a heart attack. Relevant bits of the user manual: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-families.html#assoc-decl All of this arose when thinking about fixing Trac #9063. I believe that this change will affect essentially nobody, and I propose to implement forthwith in HEAD (and hence 7.10). Does anyone object? Thanks Simon The issue Consider this: class C a where type T a b :: * instance C [x] where type T [x] b = x -> b That is just what you'd expect. But currently this is allowed too: instance C [x] where type T [x] Int = x -> Int type T [x] Bool = Bool -> x That is, GHC 7.8 allows many associated type instances, provided they don't overlap. But, oddly you can't further instantiate the instance pattern. This would make just as much sense, but isn't allowed: instance C [x] where type T [Int] b = b -> Int type T [Bool] b = Bool -> b Moreover, as the user manual says, for an open kind like *, none of this really makes sense. It really only makes sense for a closed kind. Something like class D a where type S (b :: Bool) a :: * Now this would make some kind of sense: instance D [x] where type S True [x] = x -> x type S False [x] = x But for closed kinds, you really want a closed type family. So this would be better: instance D [x] where type S b [x] = SHelp x b type family SHelp x b where SHelp x True = x -> x SHelp x False = x So yes, you do have to declare a named helper type, but you get something much more perspicuous and explicit in exchange. All of this also applies to the default declaration(s) which you can supply for an associated type (see 7.7.3.2 in the link above), only it's a bit more complicated and indirect. My solution I propose to simplify substantially, as follows: * The "shared arguments" of an associated type are the argument positions that mention a type variable from the class header. So in class C above, the first argument position of T is "shared"; and in class D, the second argument position of S is shared. * A instance for an associated type (in a class instance declaration) cf 7.7.3.1 must have o type variables in the non-shared argument positions, and o an exact copy of the corresponding instance header type in the shared positions * For each associated type you can have o at most one default declaration in the class declaration o at most one type instance declaration in the class instance declaration _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-d...@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-d...@haskell.org> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
