| Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
|
|The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
|translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
|bindings
|
| z = e
| x1 = case z of { p - x1 }
| ...
|
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:47PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
The current proposal on the table for what to do about the monomorphism
restriction (henceforth MR) is
* remove the MR entirely
Just to be clear, are we
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
bindings
| The report doesn't actually mention this translation although it is
| widely used to implement pattern bindings, and in some compilers (not
| GHC) the translation is done before type checking.
|
| What's interesting to me is that perhaps this gives us a way to
| understand what the static
Hi Simon,
Those additional reasons given are much more compelling, and should
definately go on the wiki. I think the essential point is that it
makes reasoning about the code simpler - regardless of the effect on
implementation.
My main remaining reservation is that:
(x) /= x
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Iavor:
| the change is valid. I do believe that you can probably work around
| the problem in many situations but the question in my mind is why
| should we have to work around stuff when we have a system that already
| works? In other words, what problem do MBPs solve?
...
| Neil:
| Haskell
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I should also point out that if we were to adopt the MBP rule, we
would have to adjust the definition of what pattern bindings mean.
For example, I think that this is how things are desugared at the
moment:
(x,y) = e
becomes
new_var = e
x = case new_var of (v,_) - v
y =
Hello,
Removing the MR seems reasonable. I am a little less certain about
the MPB rule though. I suspect that, as the wiki page points out,
many uses of pattern bindings are monomorphic but still, there seem to
be a number of examples on the wiki where people have run into this
problem. So I am
Hi
* remove the MR entirely
Finally!
* adopt Monomorphic Pattern Bindings (MPB)
There are 6 reasons on that page why we shouldn't adopt MPB - of those
number 5 I think is particularly compelling. There seems to be 1 main
reason to remove it, which is that it has a complex translation to
10 matches
Mail list logo
