I don't knw of a formal writeup anywhere. But does that actually mean what you are trying to write?
With the effective placement of "forall" quantifiers on the outside for u and v I'd assume that x didn't occur in either u or v. Effectively you have some scope like forall u v. exists x. ... Under that view, the warnings are accurate, and the rewrite is pretty purely syntactic. I don't see how we could write using our current vocabulary that which you want. On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net> wrote: > Is there a written explanation and/or examples of rewrite rules involving > a LHS lambda? Since rule matching is first-order, I'm wondering how terms > with lambda are matched on the LHS and substituted into on the RHS. For > instance, I want to restructure a lambda term as follows: > > > foo (\ x -> fmap u v) = bar (\ x -> u) (\ x -> v) > > My intent is that the terms `u` and `v` may contain `x` and that whatever > variable name is actually used in a term being rewritten is preserved so as > to re-capture its occurrences on the RHS. > > When I write this sort of rule, I get warnings about `x` being defined but > not used. > > Thanks, -- Conal > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
