RE: Rebindable monads?

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

| Where is there documentation for rebindable syntax for monads with class | constraints: | | (>>=) :: (Foo m, Baz a) => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b | | http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cvs.ghc/9447/match=syntax | | The users guide seems to disallow such type signatures: | | http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#rebindable-syntax   I don’t think it’s in 6.4.   Here’s the documentation from the HEAD.   Simon     7.3.5. Rebindable syntax GHC allows most kinds of built-in syntax to be rebound by the user, to facilitate replacing the Prelude with a home-grown version, for example. You may want to define your own numeric class hierarchy. It completely defeats that purpose if the literal "1" means "Prelude.fromInteger 1", which is what the Haskell Report specifies. So the -fno-implicit-prelude flag causes the following pieces of built-in syntax to refer to whatever is in scope, not the Prelude versions: ·         An integer literal 368 means "fromInteger (368::Integer)", rather than "Prelude.fromInteger (368::Integer)". ·         Fractional literals are handed in just the same way, except that the translation is fromRational (3.68::Rational). ·         The equality test in an overloaded numeric pattern uses whatever (==) is in scope. ·         The subtraction operation, and the greater-than-or-equal test, in n+k patterns use whatever (-) and (>=) are in scope. ·         Negation (e.g. "- (f x)") means "negate (f x)", both in numeric patterns, and expressions. ·         "Do" notation is translated using whatever functions (>>=), (>>), and fail, are in scope (not the Prelude versions). List comprehensions, mdo (Section 7.3.3, “The recursive do-notation ”), and parallel array comprehensions, are unaffected. ·         Arrow notation (see Section 7.7, “Arrow notation ”) uses whatever arr, (>>>), first, app, (|||) and loop functions are in scope. But unlike the other constructs, the types of these functions must match the Prelude types very closely. Details are in flux; if you want to use this, ask! In all cases (apart from arrow notation), the static semantics should be that of the desugared form, even if that is a little unexpected. For emample, the static semantics of the literal 368 is exactly that of fromInteger (368::Integer); it's fine for fromInteger to have any of the types: fromInteger :: Integer -> Integer fromInteger :: forall a. Foo a => Integer -> a fromInteger :: Num a => a -> Integer fromInteger :: Integer -> Bool -> Bool Be warned: this is an experimental facility, with fewer checks than usual. Use -dcore-lint to typecheck the desugared program. If Core Lint is happy you should be all right.

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users