It's a niggle, but I think it's more correct to say that type inference
isn't completely decidable in the presence of subtyping.
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:45:42 AM UTC-7, Rémi Lefèvre wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, this is perfectly clear.
>
> For some reason, I was confused by extensible records and thought I could
> express a type of functions that are guaranteed to not use any record field
> not defined by the Named type alias.
> Of course this is wrong and consistent with the rest of the language.
> Actually my contrived example is as absurd as the simpler:
>
> fails : (a -> b) -> b
> fails func =
> func ()
>
> life =
> fails (\_ -> 42)
>
> I think that what I confusingly expected of extensible records in this
> case was more like a typeclass implementing the `.name : a -> Maybe String`
> operation.
> And that's why extensible records are AFAIK only mainly used to narrow
> functions arguments currently.
>
>
> So thank you again for having cleared my mind.
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:13:34 PM UTC+2, Ilias Van Peer wrote:
>>
>> mapNamed : (Named a -> b) -> Element -> b
>>
>> In that line, you say that I can pass in a function that works on `Named
>> a`, where `a` isn't bound to anything. So if I were to write a function `foo
>> : Named { iAlsoNeedAnInt : Int } -> Int`, I could pass that to that `
>> mapNamed`. However `Element` contains a very *specific* type of `Named a`
>> - it is a `Named {}`.
>>
>> So one thing you could do is changing the annotation to say `mapNamed :
>> (Named {} -> b) -> Element -> b`. Note that this would fall apart as
>> soon as the different values in `Element` actually have different types.
>>
>> Note that this isn't unique to extensible records, or even records at
>> all. Say you wanted to allow passing `identity` in. You could try `mapNamed
>> : (a -> b) -> Element -> Element`, but that also wouldn't work.. Because
>> I could pass in `(\x -> x * 7)` which has type `number -> number`, which
>> is valid according to the `a -> a` shape.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies things a little?
>>
>> Op woensdag 4 oktober 2017 16:19:45 UTC+2 schreef Rémi Lefèvre:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if there is a way to use higher-order functions with a
>>> function using an extensible record?
>>>
>>> When I try to build this code:
>>>
>>> type alias Named a =
>>> { a | name : Maybe String }
>>>
>>> getName : Named a -> Maybe String
>>> getName { name } =
>>> name
>>>
>>> type Element
>>> = AnElement { name : Maybe String }
>>> | AnotherElement { name : Maybe String }
>>>
>>> mapNamed : (Named a -> b) -> Element -> b
>>> mapNamed func element =
>>> case element of
>>> AnElement e ->
>>> func e
>>>
>>> AnotherElement e ->
>>> func e
>>>
>>> getElementName : Element -> Maybe String
>>> getElementName e =
>>> mapNamed getName e
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I get the following error:
>>>
>>> Detected errors in 1 module. -- TYPE MISMATCH
>>> ----------------------------------- Types.elm The argument to function
>>> `func` is causing a mismatch. 13| func e ^ Function `func` is expecting
>>> the argument to be: Named a But it is: { name : Maybe String } Hint:
>>> Your type annotation uses type variable `a` which means any type of value
>>> can flow through. Your code is saying it CANNOT be anything though! Maybe
>>> change your type annotation to be more specific? Maybe the code has a
>>> problem? More at: <
>>> https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/blob/0.18.0/hints/type-annotations.md>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I struggle to understand why this does not work whereas replacing *func*
>>> by *getName* satisfies the compiler:
>>>
>>> getElementName : Element -> Maybe String
>>> getElementName element =
>>> case element of
>>> AnElement e ->
>>> getName e
>>>
>>> AnotherElement e ->
>>> getName e
>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea ?
>>>
>>> Thank you and sorry if this has been already discussed, I did not find
>>> anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
