Great -- this agrees with the current proposal at the type level ((NEWCUSK) in
the language of #9200.)
Thanks for the quick response!
Richard
On Jun 19, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> | So in general, if there is a partial type signature, the compiler
> | tries to infer a typ
| So in general, if there is a partial type signature, the compiler
| tries to infer a type under the assumption that there is no
| polymorphic recursion, similar to what it does when there is no
| signature.
Yes. The way to think of it (at both term and type level) is this.
A full type signat
Richard,
Since Thomas is attending a summer school for the moment, I'll
try to provide a response and Thomas can correct me later if needed...
2014-06-19 17:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Eisenberg :
> Vigorous debate on #9200 (https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9200) has
> led me to think about poly
Hi Thomas,
Vigorous debate on #9200 (https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9200) has led
me to think about polymorphic recursion in the presence of a partial type
signature. For example, take the following silly but well-typed function:
> foo :: (a -> Bool) -> a -> ()
> foo _ _ = foo not True
Hi,
My apologies for the late reply.
On 2014-04-10 17:43, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
What's the next step from your point of view? Are there unimplemented
bits of this?
We do see some bits left to implement:
* Partial pattern and expression signatures (see [1] for our view on
this issue).
* P
Yay!
I have nothing else constructive to say, at the moment.
What's the next step from your point of view? Are there unimplemented bits of
this?
Thanks for doing this!
Richard
On Apr 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Thomas Winant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm back with a status update. We implemented Austin's
Hi,
I'm back with a status update. We implemented Austin's suggestion to
make wildcards in partial type signatures behave like holes.
Let's demonstrate the new behaviour with an example. The example
program:
module Example where
foo :: (Show _a, _) => _a -> _
foo x = show (succ x)
Compiled
On 03/13/2014 09:56 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
First of all: Yay! I've been wanting this for some time. I'm sorry I
> missed your presentation at PADL about this.
>
> I, personally, rather like the design. There may be fine points of
> discussion as it all becomes reality, but I think this
thomas.win...@cs.kuleuven.be]
| Sent: 13 March 2014 19:38
| To: Simon Peyton Jones; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Cc: Tom Schrijvers; Frank Piessens
| Subject: Re: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
|
| On 13-03-14 10:46, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
| > | Together with Tom Schrijvers, Frank Piessens and Dominique Devr
i'd like to echo the echo of agreement :)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> I'd just like to echo that I really like Austin's suggestion as well, as
> it very nicely unifies the two usecases, while simultaneously *not
> *dramatically
> increasing scope.
>
> -Edward
>
>
>
I'd just like to echo that I really like Austin's suggestion as well, as it
very nicely unifies the two usecases, while simultaneously *not *dramatically
increasing scope.
-Edward
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> First of all: Yay! I've been wanting this for some time
First of all: Yay! I've been wanting this for some time. I'm sorry I missed
your presentation at PADL about this.
I, personally, rather like the design. There may be fine points of discussion
as it all becomes reality, but I think this is a great approach -- much like
what I've envisioned whene
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Thomas Winant
wrote:
> However, we have the impression that no Hole should remain unfilled,
> whereas using a partial type signature doesn't necessarily mean the
> program is incomplete. A partial type signature can still be a
> (stylistic) choice.
Yes, this is th
Thomas
| Winant
| Sent: 12 March 2014 13:36
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Cc: Tom Schrijvers; Frank Piessens
| Subject: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
|
| Dear GHC developers,
|
| Together with Tom Schrijvers, Frank Piessens and Dominique Devriese, I
| have been working on a proposal for adding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
One useful thing to have would be a new flag that, similar to
- -fwarn-missing-signatures, warns if there is a top-level definition
with an incomplete type.
However, this clashes a bit with the "Readability" section of the wiki
entry, so it's up to de
On 03/12/2014 08:09 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
In any case, I believe the original formulation of Holes by Thijs
> actually somewhat overlapped with the idea presented here. In
> particular, it would have allowed us to say[4]:
>
> f :: Bool -> _ ()
> f = ...
>
> where _ is a 'hole' in the signatu
ave a Skype conversation about the details in due course.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
| Winant
| Sent: 12 March 2014 13:36
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Cc: Tom Schrijvers; Frank Piessens
| Subject: Proposal: Partial
Jones
> | Cc: Malcolm Wallace; ghc-devs
> | Subject: Re: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
> |
> | Just a reminder that the new jargon is TypedHoles, so maybe the page
> | should be renamed to reflect that (an possibly combed for the old
> | spelling).
> |
> | Cheers,
>
Aha!, that is exactly why TypeHoles were renamed to TypedHoles :)
In the TypedHoles extension underscores are used on the term level.
On March 12, 2014 at 10:18:40 PM, Malcolm Wallace (malcolm.wall...@me.com)
wrote:
Since I never used them, I have honestly been under the impression that the
Indeed, you are right. It's a wiki, so do go ahead.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Gabor Greif [mailto:ggr...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 12 March 2014 18:55
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: Malcolm Wallace; ghc-devs
| Subject: Re: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
|
| Just a reminder
ton Jones wrote:
>> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/TypeHoles
>>
>> | -Original Message-
>> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm
>> | Wallace
>> | Sent: 12 March 2014 18:19
>> | To: ghc-devs
>> |
> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm
> | Wallace
> | Sent: 12 March 2014 18:19
> | To: ghc-devs
> | Subject: Re: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
> |
> | Since I never used them, I have honestly been under the impression that
> |
Hi all,
this proposal looks very interesting. When writing functions that
consume/produce values of proper GADT type, signatures are mandatory.
So just spelling out the GADTs and leaving the rest to type inference
looks like a clear win.
I can only second the in-development-no-signatures argument
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/TypeHoles
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm
| Wallace
| Sent: 12 March 2014 18:19
| To: ghc-devs
| Subject: Re: Proposal: Partial Type Signatures
|
| Since I never used them, I have
Since I never used them, I have honestly been under the impression that the
TypeHoles language extension named exactly this partial type signatures thing.
I have loved the idea of underspecifying the type signature, ever since it was
first mooted many years ago. So what does TypeHoles do, if n
Clearly given that term-level holes are called TypeHoles, the extension to
enable these should be called KindHoles. =)
Er.. I'll show myself out.
-Edward
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Winant wrote:
> Dear GHC developers,
>
> Together with Tom Schrijvers, Frank Piessens and Dominique
Dear GHC developers,
Together with Tom Schrijvers, Frank Piessens and Dominique Devriese, I
have been working on a proposal for adding *Partial Type Signatures* to
GHC. In a partial type signature, annotated types can be mixed with
inferred types. A type signature is written like before, but can
27 matches
Mail list logo
