Interesting. Is this case also an example, or is it a non-feature? class C t where type K t :: Type type T t :: K t -> Type
m :: t -> T t a Ah, that’s quite different! We should do strongly-connected-component analysis of the associated-type declarations within a single class declaration…. but we don’t currently do that. No difficulty in principle, I think. You could open a ticket. (Do include a link to this email thread and to #12088) Simon From: d4ve.menen...@gmail.com [mailto:d4ve.menen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of David Menendez Sent: 23 September 2016 19:51 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org Mailing List <Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org> Subject: Re: Type families in kind signatures with TypeInType On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: This is an example of https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12088. Interesting. Is this case also an example, or is it a non-feature? class C t where type K t :: Type type T t :: K t -> Type m :: t -> T t a min.hs:21:17: error: • Type constructor ‘K’ cannot be used here (it is defined and used in the same recursive group) • In the kind ‘K t -> Type’ Failed, modules loaded: none. GHC accepts this if K t is moved outside of C. The “type instance T List” declaration actually depends on the “type instance K List” declaration; the latter must be typechecked before the former. But this dependency is absolutely unclear. There’s a long discussion on the thread. Bottom line: we don’t know a solid automated way to spot this kind of problem, so I think we are going to ask for programmer assistance. In this case, we’d put a “separator” after the “type instance K List” decl, to explain that it must be done first: type instance K List = Type =========== type instance T List = [] Currently you have to write $(return []) to get the separator, but I think we’ll add a special separator. Yes, this works. Thanks. It would be disappointing if this is the best we can do, but I guess other dependent languages don’t need to deal with open type families and everything being potentially mutually recursive. -- Dave Menendez <d...@zednenem.com<mailto:d...@zednenem.com>> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.eyrie.org%2F~zednenem%2F&data=01%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C89f26f5e599e49b96e0c08d3e3e29e26%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=c8g6ahf%2F8lun%2BPBof97s03XbePVwT4Buh6ef2bDSjLg%3D&reserved=0>>
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users