Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 23.07.2013, 09:51 +0100 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> A few responses:
>
> - As Simon said, there is no great reason we don't have ~R# in Core.
> It's just that we looked through GHC and, without newtype coercions,
> there is no need for ~R#, so we opted not to include it. I'm still not
> convinced we need it for newtype coercions, though. What if we have this
> in Core?
>
> > class NT a b = MkNT { castNT :: a -> b ; uncastNT :: b -> a }
> > NTCo:Age :: Age ~R# Int -- see [1]
> > NTAgeInst :: NT Age Int
> > NTAgeInst = MkNT { castNT = \(a :: Age). a |> NTCo:Age ; uncastNT = \(x
> > :: Int). x |> sym NTCo:Age }I thought about this class definition, and it is has the nice property that we can actually implement the methods by hand (without the zero-cost of course), which would be a good lint-like check that we do not generate illegal instances. The problem is that It it would not allow deriving instance NT a b => NT [a] [b] as there is no way to extract the coercion that was used in the implementation of NT a b. Hence the need to expose (to Core, not to tue user) the coercion in the class: The cast operations do not compose well. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
