Re: Getting rid of -XImpredicativeTypes

Oops, I completely missed you saying that despite reading your post multiple times and actually quoting it. Sorry about that. But yes, that makes it very clear, thanks. Doable, even if a pain in the neck. The motivation for my question was that I vaguely recalled encountering code that uses impredicative instantation when upgrading darcs to support GHC 8.0. Using VTA will at least make it feasible to migrate even if it requires CPP, so I'm no longer worried about having to rewrite hurriedly. Given the type inference problems, I appreciate it's better to just give up than try to support something half baked. On 03/10/2016 10:14, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Indeed, as I said “I mis-spoke before: In my proposal we WILL allow types like (Tree (forall a. a->a))”.

So yes, such types will be possible in type signatures (with ImpredicativeTypes). But using functions with such type signatures will be tiresome, because you’ll have to use VTA on every occasion. E.g. if

xs :: [forall a. a->a]

then you can’t say (reverse xs), because that requires impredicative instantiation of reverse’s type argument. You must stay

reverse @(forall a. a->a) xs

Does that help?

Simon

*From:*Ganesh Sittampalam [mailto:ganesh@earth.li] *Sent:* 02 October 2016 12:07 *To:* Simon Peyton Jones ; Alejandro Serrano Mena *Cc:* ghc-devs@haskell.org; ghc-users@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: Getting rid of -XImpredicativeTypes

Elsewhere in the thread, you said

1) ImpredicativeTypes enables types like `Maybe (forall a. a)`. Do those just disappear, or are they also enabled anyway? (I would guess the former.)

Yes, they’d disappear.

but here you're talking about 'xs :: [forall a . a->a]' being possible with VTA - is the idea that such types will be possible but only with both explicit signatures and VTA?

On 30/09/2016 16:29, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs wrote:

Alejandro: excellent point. I mis-spoke before. In my proposal we WILL allow types like (Tree (forall a. a->a)).

I’m trying to get round to writing a proposal (would someone else like to write it – it should be short), but the idea is this:

*When you have -XImpredicativeTypes*

· *You can write a polytype in a visible type argument; eg. f @(forall a. a->a)*

· *You can write a polytype as an argument of a type in a signature e.g. f :: [forall a. a->a] -> Int*

* *

*And that’s all. A unification variable STILL CANNOT be unified with a polytype. The only way you can call a polymorphic function at a polytype is to use Visible Type Application.*

* *

*So using impredicative types might be tiresome. E.g.*

* type SID = forall a. a->a*

* *

* xs :: [forall a. a->a]*

* xs = (:) @SID id ( (:) @SID id ([] @ SID))*

* *

*In short, if you call a function at a polytype, you must use VTA. Simple, easy, predictable; and doubtless annoying. But possible*.

Simon

*From:*Alejandro Serrano Mena [mailto:trupill@gmail.com] *Sent:* 26 September 2016 08:13 *To:* Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com *Cc:* ghc-users@haskell.org mailto:ghc-users@haskell.org; ghc-devs@haskell.org mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: Getting rid of -XImpredicativeTypes

What would be the story for the types of the arguments. Would I be allowed to write the following?

> f (lst :: [forall a. a -> a]) = head @(forall a. a -> a) lst 3

Regards,

Alejandro

2016-09-25 20:05 GMT+02:00 Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>:

Friends

GHC has a flag -XImpredicativeTypes that makes a half-hearted attempt to support impredicative polymorphism. But it is vestigial…. if it works, it’s really a fluke. We don’t really have a systematic story here at all.

I propose, therefore, to remove it entirely. That is, if you use -XImpredicativeTypes, you’ll get a warning that it does nothing (ie. complete no-op) and you should remove it.

Before I pull the trigger, does anyone think they are using it in a mission-critical way?

Now that we have Visible Type Application there is a workaround: if you want to call a polymorphic function at a polymorphic type, you can explicitly apply it to that type. For example:

{-# LANGUAGE ImpredicativeTypes, TypeApplications, RankNTypes #-}

module Vta where

f x = id @(forall a. a->a) id @Int x

You can also leave out the @Int part of course.

Currently we have to use -XImpredicativeTypes to allow the @(forall a. a->a). Is that sensible? Or should we allow it regardless? I rather think the latter… if you have Visible Type Application (i.e. -XTypeApplications) then applying to a polytype is nothing special. So I propose to lift that restriction.

I should go through the GHC Proposals Process for this, but I’m on a plane, so I’m going to at least start with an email.

Simon

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-devs&data=01%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cd4eb1fd61d0148cea9f508d3e5dca6fe%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=ZM3djztmpA09J6x1DmmV0LEeftsA1FhjPhjwLuG5w%2FE%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________

ghc-devs mailing list

ghc-devs@haskell.org mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org

http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-devs&data=01%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2a21525b2ae3432ba31e08d3eab43e4c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=Y9f9UGWEd1%2FHwNFLQx2XRrlk35gZeK7Sm2w1NBnU3FY%3D&reserved=0