I should mention that while this does not require UNPACKing sum types (or
any of the difficult trade-offs that involves), it lets programmers
accomplish such unpacking by hand under sufficiently general conditions to
be quite useful in practice. As long as the set of types involved is
closed, it'll do.
David Feuer
Given
data Big a = B1 !(Small1 a) | B2 !(Small2 a) | B3 !(Small3 a), where the Small types are (possibly recursive) sums, it's generally possible to express that as something like
data Selector = One | Two | Three data Big a = forall (x :: Selector) . Big !(BigG x a) data BigG x a where GB1a :: some -> fields -> BigG 'One a GB1b :: fields -> BigG 'One a GB2a :: whatever -> BigG 'Two a GB3a :: yeah -> BigG 'Three a
Making one big GADT from all the constructors of the "small" types, and then wrapping it up in an existential. That's what I meant about "unpacking". But for efficiency purposes, that wrapper needs the newtype optimization.
Yes, but you'd need to unbox a sum in this case, no? I think this is the first issue that you need to solve before you can talk about dealing with the polymorphism issue (although hopefully Ömer will make progress on this for 8.2). Cheers, - Ben