Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
> On 18 Sep 2021, at 04:29, Anthony Clayden wrote: > "InstanceSigs is a mis-feature. Don't use it. It is less confusing to just > give no signature at all. If you really, really want to bind tyvars, use > PatternSignatures." I would strongly disagree with this statement. I think instance signatures are a perfectly fine feature for the very simple case of "I want type signatures on my bindings, because I've got better stuff to do than memorising signatures or doing type inference in my head." Does that mean they are superfluous, as your initial email suggests? Well, kinda, in the same way that "adding type signatures to top level bindings" is *technically* superfluous, but I still have those on all my top level bindings. Characterising the extension as a miss-feature in the user guide seems weird for a perfectly usable and useful extension. Cheers, Merijn signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
> If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this better, that would be great. Thank you Simon for the invitation. On further investigation https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20357, what I'd like the user manual to say is: "InstanceSigs is a mis-feature. Don't use it. It is less confusing to just give no signature at all. If you really, really want to bind tyvars, use PatternSignatures." ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 21:15, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > > > I think you see why the instance sig must be at least as polymorphic ... > Thanks Simon, I do now see, but I'd have to say there's a heck of lot of questions on StackOverflow (most not from me) being surprised/asking why. See more below. > > I agree with David’s (1) and (2) reasons, but not with (3) or (4), neither > of which I quite understand. > > > (1) is documented in the User Guide, but the magic words "compiler-checked" don't appear. (2) is documented and illustrated, but in that example the ScopedTyVar is superfluous. > There is no compelling reason to make the instance signature *more* > polymorphic > I think there's an ergonomics reason (which is illustrated but not explained): (5) If the instance is constrained, there's no need to repeat the constraints in the InstanceSig, so reducing clutter/making the Sig easier to read (as you say). This results in making the InstanceSig more polymorphic: >data T a = MkT a a>instance Eq a => Eq (T a) where*> * (==) :: T a > -> T a -> Bool -- The signature*> * (==) (MkT x1 x2) (MkTy y1 y2) = > x1==y1 && x2==y2 That Sig could be *>* (==) :: Eq a => T a -> T a -> Bool -- repeat constraint, but clutter > – that is, doing so does not increase expressiveness. But it might make a > briefer, more comprehensible type for the reader. The only alternative > would be to insist that the two types are the same, a completely redundant > test, but one you might conceivably want on stylistic grounds. > More to the point: it would bring into scope the ScopedTyVars. > > > All in all, no big deal. Instance signature are a convenience, never a > necessity. > > > > If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this > better, that would be great. > > > > [Discussion cont. from first para]: ... [more polymorphic] than the instantiated signature from the class – > because that’s what the client is going to expect. We are building a > record of functions, and they must conform to the class signature. > And that answer is unsatisfactory. It amounts to: we didn't think in advance how useful it would be to put tighter constraints on methods -- particularly for the tyvars that are 'private' to the method/not from the instance head -- that is within Constructor classes. Allowing that would be a partial (heh, heh) way towards 'Restricted Data Types' Hughes 1999 and Eisenberg et al 2020 (ref'ing many earlier attempts), and indeed Haskell Language Report vintage 1990 (the design before 'stupid theta'). I suppose it's beyond a wild dream to allow the InstanceSig to be at least as polymoprhic wrt the types/vars from the instance head but possibly less polymorphic wrt the method's private types/vars? The actual type inferred would be the mgu of the InstanceSig given with the substitution from the instance head & constraints. > > > *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users *On > Behalf Of *David Feuer > *Sent:* 08 August 2021 09:37 > *To:* Anthony Clayden > *Cc:* GHC users > *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more > polymorphic than" > > > > To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. > They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: > > > > 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. > > 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. > > 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. > > 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation > purposes. > > > > The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more > general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. > > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden > wrote: > > I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. > It's this bit in the User Guide: > > > > > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > > > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > > > instantiated with the instance type. > > > > Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the > same as) the type inferred from the term: > > > > >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a > > >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y > > > > Or > > > > >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a > > > > The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the > InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use > -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `
Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
Ah, I see. Yes, you're right. Sorry. On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 3:15 PM Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > Do you have a concrete example? > > > > I think that the recursive calls will all go via the original class method > with its original type – we can’t know that it’s calling **this** > instance till much later. So I still don’t get it. An example would > clear it up. > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* David Feuer > *Sent:* 10 August 2021 12:01 > *To:* Simon Peyton Jones > *Cc:* Anthony Clayden ; GHC users < > glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org> > *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more > polymorphic than" > > > > Simon, there are times when a function has to be generalized to be made > polymorphic recursive. Perhaps the method takes an argument of type x (not > a class parameter), but to call itself, it needs to be able to take types > x, T x, T (T x), etc. That additional polymorphism can be introduced in the > instance signature. The alternative is to introduce a helper function with > extra polymorphism. > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 5:15 AM Simon Peyton Jones > wrote: > > AntC, > > > > I think you see why the instance sig must be at least as polymorphic than > the instantiated signature from the class – because that’s what the client > is going to expect. We are building a record of functions, and they must > conform to the class signature. > > > > I agree with David’s (1) and (2) reasons, but not with (3) or (4), neither > of which I quite understand. > > > > There is no compelling reason to make the instance signature *more* > polymorphic – that is, doing so does not increase expressiveness. But it > might make a briefer, more comprehensible type for the reader. The only > alternative would be to insist that the two types are the same, a > completely redundant test, but one you might conceivably want on stylistic > grounds. > > > > All in all, no big deal. Instance signature are a convenience, never a > necessity. > > > > If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this > better, that would be great. > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users *On > Behalf Of *David Feuer > *Sent:* 08 August 2021 09:37 > *To:* Anthony Clayden > *Cc:* GHC users > *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more > polymorphic than" > > > > To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. > They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: > > > > 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. > > 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. > > 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. > > 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation > purposes. > > > > The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more > general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. > > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden > wrote: > > I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. > It's this bit in the User Guide: > > > > > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > > > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > > > instantiated with the instance type. > > > > Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the > same as) the type inferred from the term: > > > > >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a > > >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y > > > > Or > > > > >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a > > > > The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the > InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use > -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `xs :: > [b]` without scoping `b`.) > > > > Dropping the Sigs altogether works because the type from the class decl, > suitably instantiated, is less polymorphic than inferred from the term. IOW > the suitably instantiated type restricts what would otherwise be inferred. > Situation normal. > > > > I suppose it might be helpful to give an explicit InstanceSig as 'belt and > braces' for the instantiated -- possibly because the instantiation is hard > to figure out; possibly because you want to use -XScopedTypeVariables > within a where-bound sub-decl, as an extra piece of string. > > > > I can see you mustn't make the InstanceSig _less_ polymorphic than the >
RE: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
Do you have a concrete example? I think that the recursive calls will all go via the original class method with its original type - we can't know that it's calling *this* instance till much later. So I still don't get it. An example would clear it up. Simon From: David Feuer Sent: 10 August 2021 12:01 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: Anthony Clayden ; GHC users Subject: Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than" Simon, there are times when a function has to be generalized to be made polymorphic recursive. Perhaps the method takes an argument of type x (not a class parameter), but to call itself, it needs to be able to take types x, T x, T (T x), etc. That additional polymorphism can be introduced in the instance signature. The alternative is to introduce a helper function with extra polymorphism. On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 5:15 AM Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: AntC, I think you see why the instance sig must be at least as polymorphic than the instantiated signature from the class - because that's what the client is going to expect. We are building a record of functions, and they must conform to the class signature. I agree with David's (1) and (2) reasons, but not with (3) or (4), neither of which I quite understand. There is no compelling reason to make the instance signature more polymorphic - that is, doing so does not increase expressiveness. But it might make a briefer, more comprehensible type for the reader. The only alternative would be to insist that the two types are the same, a completely redundant test, but one you might conceivably want on stylistic grounds. All in all, no big deal. Instance signature are a convenience, never a necessity. If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this better, that would be great. Simon From: Glasgow-haskell-users mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org>> On Behalf Of David Feuer Sent: 08 August 2021 09:37 To: Anthony Clayden mailto:anthony.d.clay...@gmail.com>> Cc: GHC users mailto:glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org>> Subject: Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than" To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation purposes. The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden mailto:anthony.d.clay...@gmail.com>> wrote: I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. It's this bit in the User Guide: > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > instantiated with the instance type. Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the same as) the type inferred from the term: >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y Or >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `xs :: [b]` without scoping `b`.) Dropping the Sigs altogether works because the type from the class decl, suitably instantiated, is less polymorphic than inferred from the term. IOW the suitably instantiated type restricts what would otherwise be inferred. Situation normal. I suppose it might be helpful to give an explicit InstanceSig as 'belt and braces' for the instantiated -- possibly because the instantiation is hard to figure out; possibly because you want to use -XScopedTypeVariables within a where-bound sub-decl, as an extra piece of string. I can see you mustn't make the InstanceSig _less_ polymorphic than the suitably instantiated. But the docos don't give any example where it's essential to provide an InstanceSig _and_ make it strictly more polymorphic. Here all the sigs and annotations are just superfluous: >maxPolyPlus :: Num a => a -> a -> a >maxPolyPlus = (+) > >class C a where foo :: a -> T a >instance Integral a => C a where > foo :: Num a => a -> T a > foo (x :: a) = MkT (maxPolyPlus x x :: Num a => a) Is there a persuasive example (to put in the User Guide)? AntC ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org<mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org> ht
Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
Simon, there are times when a function has to be generalized to be made polymorphic recursive. Perhaps the method takes an argument of type x (not a class parameter), but to call itself, it needs to be able to take types x, T x, T (T x), etc. That additional polymorphism can be introduced in the instance signature. The alternative is to introduce a helper function with extra polymorphism. On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 5:15 AM Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > AntC, > > > > I think you see why the instance sig must be at least as polymorphic than > the instantiated signature from the class – because that’s what the client > is going to expect. We are building a record of functions, and they must > conform to the class signature. > > > > I agree with David’s (1) and (2) reasons, but not with (3) or (4), neither > of which I quite understand. > > > > There is no compelling reason to make the instance signature *more* > polymorphic – that is, doing so does not increase expressiveness. But it > might make a briefer, more comprehensible type for the reader. The only > alternative would be to insist that the two types are the same, a > completely redundant test, but one you might conceivably want on stylistic > grounds. > > > > All in all, no big deal. Instance signature are a convenience, never a > necessity. > > > > If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this > better, that would be great. > > > > Simon > > > > *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users *On > Behalf Of *David Feuer > *Sent:* 08 August 2021 09:37 > *To:* Anthony Clayden > *Cc:* GHC users > *Subject:* Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more > polymorphic than" > > > > To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. > They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: > > > > 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. > > 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. > > 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. > > 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation > purposes. > > > > The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more > general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. > > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden > wrote: > > I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. > It's this bit in the User Guide: > > > > > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > > > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > > > instantiated with the instance type. > > > > Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the > same as) the type inferred from the term: > > > > >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a > > >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y > > > > Or > > > > >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a > > > > The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the > InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use > -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `xs :: > [b]` without scoping `b`.) > > > > Dropping the Sigs altogether works because the type from the class decl, > suitably instantiated, is less polymorphic than inferred from the term. IOW > the suitably instantiated type restricts what would otherwise be inferred. > Situation normal. > > > > I suppose it might be helpful to give an explicit InstanceSig as 'belt and > braces' for the instantiated -- possibly because the instantiation is hard > to figure out; possibly because you want to use -XScopedTypeVariables > within a where-bound sub-decl, as an extra piece of string. > > > > I can see you mustn't make the InstanceSig _less_ polymorphic than the > suitably instantiated. > > > > But the docos don't give any example where it's essential to provide an > InstanceSig _and_ make it strictly more polymorphic. Here all the sigs and > annotations are just superfluous: > > > > >maxPolyPlus :: Num a => a -> a -> a > >maxPolyPlus = (+) > > > > >class C a where foo :: a -> T a > >instance Integral a => C a where > > foo :: Num a => a -> T a > > foo (x :: a) = MkT (maxPolyPlus x x :: Num a => a) > > > > Is there a persuasive example (to put in the User Guide)? > > > > AntC > > > > ___ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell
RE: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
AntC, I think you see why the instance sig must be at least as polymorphic than the instantiated signature from the class - because that's what the client is going to expect. We are building a record of functions, and they must conform to the class signature. I agree with David's (1) and (2) reasons, but not with (3) or (4), neither of which I quite understand. There is no compelling reason to make the instance signature more polymorphic - that is, doing so does not increase expressiveness. But it might make a briefer, more comprehensible type for the reader. The only alternative would be to insist that the two types are the same, a completely redundant test, but one you might conceivably want on stylistic grounds. All in all, no big deal. Instance signature are a convenience, never a necessity. If you would like to offer a patch for the user manual to explain this better, that would be great. Simon From: Glasgow-haskell-users On Behalf Of David Feuer Sent: 08 August 2021 09:37 To: Anthony Clayden Cc: GHC users Subject: Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than" To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation purposes. The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden mailto:anthony.d.clay...@gmail.com>> wrote: I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. It's this bit in the User Guide: > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > instantiated with the instance type. Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the same as) the type inferred from the term: >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y Or >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `xs :: [b]` without scoping `b`.) Dropping the Sigs altogether works because the type from the class decl, suitably instantiated, is less polymorphic than inferred from the term. IOW the suitably instantiated type restricts what would otherwise be inferred. Situation normal. I suppose it might be helpful to give an explicit InstanceSig as 'belt and braces' for the instantiated -- possibly because the instantiation is hard to figure out; possibly because you want to use -XScopedTypeVariables within a where-bound sub-decl, as an extra piece of string. I can see you mustn't make the InstanceSig _less_ polymorphic than the suitably instantiated. But the docos don't give any example where it's essential to provide an InstanceSig _and_ make it strictly more polymorphic. Here all the sigs and annotations are just superfluous: >maxPolyPlus :: Num a => a -> a -> a >maxPolyPlus = (+) > >class C a where foo :: a -> T a >instance Integral a => C a where > foo :: Num a => a -> T a > foo (x :: a) = MkT (maxPolyPlus x x :: Num a => a) Is there a persuasive example (to put in the User Guide)? AntC ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org<mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fglasgow-haskell-users=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C51928cea45a84d24d62508d95a47ba3c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637640086425578886%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=qY9jOKGv3RIFPCuVT%2FZIBfaBBofcm6p7PG3yfq%2FJRiM%3D=0> ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: InstanceSigs -- rationale for the "must be more polymorphic than"
To the best of my knowledge, `InstanceSigs` are never strictly necessary. They can, however, be useful for at least four purposes: 1. To provide a compiler-checked reminder of the type. 2. To bind type variables with `ScopedTypeVariables`. 3. To generalize the type so you can use polymorphic recursion. 4. To enhance parametricitry/polymorphism for internal documentation purposes. The third reason is probably the main technical one to allow a more general signature, but the fourth is likely helpful too. On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 3:04 AM Anthony Clayden wrote: > I can't help but feel InstanceSigs are either superfluous or upside-down. > It's this bit in the User Guide: > > > The type signature in the instance declaration must be > > more polymorphic than (or the same as) the one in the class declaration, > > instantiated with the instance type. > > Usually if you give a signature, it must be _less_ polymorphic (or the > same as) the type inferred from the term: > > >lessPolyPlus :: Integral a => a -> a -> a > >lessPolyPlus x y = x + y > > Or > > >lessPolyPlus (x :: a) y = x + y :: Integral a => a > > The examples in the User Guide aren't helping: you could just drop the > InstanceSigs, and all is well-typed. (Even the example alleging to use > -XScopedTypeVariables in a where sub-decl: you could just put random `xs :: > [b]` without scoping `b`.) > > Dropping the Sigs altogether works because the type from the class decl, > suitably instantiated, is less polymorphic than inferred from the term. IOW > the suitably instantiated type restricts what would otherwise be inferred. > Situation normal. > > I suppose it might be helpful to give an explicit InstanceSig as 'belt and > braces' for the instantiated -- possibly because the instantiation is hard > to figure out; possibly because you want to use -XScopedTypeVariables > within a where-bound sub-decl, as an extra piece of string. > > I can see you mustn't make the InstanceSig _less_ polymorphic than the > suitably instantiated. > > But the docos don't give any example where it's essential to provide an > InstanceSig _and_ make it strictly more polymorphic. Here all the sigs and > annotations are just superfluous: > > >maxPolyPlus :: Num a => a -> a -> a > >maxPolyPlus = (+) > > > >class C a where foo :: a -> T a > >instance Integral a => C a where > > foo :: Num a => a -> T a > > foo (x :: a) = MkT (maxPolyPlus x x :: Num a => a) > > Is there a persuasive example (to put in the User Guide)? > > AntC > > ___ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
