You're right, of course. I'm now thinking we really do need ~R# to make
this work. That's annoying, but not technically difficult. I'll continue
to think about this.
Richard
On 2013-07-23 10:00, Joachim Breitner wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
