Re: Kinds of type synonym arguments

I brought up the subject of allowing newtypes in kind # (or even in any kind that ends in * or # after a chain of ->'s to get more powerful Coercible instances) at ICFP this year and Simon seemed to think it'd be a pretty straightforward modification to the typechecker. I confess, he's likely waiting for me to actually sit down and give the idea a nice writeup. ;) This would be good for many things, especially when it comes to improving the type safety of various custom c-- tricks. -Edward On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

I have another related question: What about allowing primitive types in newtypes?

λ:4> newtype Blah1 = Blah1 Int λ:5> newtype Blah2 = Blah2 Int#

<interactive>:5:23: error: • Expecting a lifted type, but ‘Int#’ is unlifted • In the type ‘Int#’ In the definition of data constructor ‘Blah2’ In the newtype declaration for ‘Blah2’

Ideally second definition should be OK, and kind of Blah2 should be #. Is this too hard to do?

2015-12-16 17:22 GMT-05:00 Richard Eisenberg :

...

On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan

...

...

In any case, this is not that big deal. When I read the code I thought

...

...

should be a trivial change but apparently it's not.

No, it's not. Your example (`f :: (Int#, b) -> b`) still has an unboxed

wrote: this thing in a boxed tuple. Boxed tuples simply can't (currently) hold unboxed things. And changing that is far from trivial. It's not the polymorphism that's the problem -- it's the unboxed thing in a boxed tuple.

...

Richard

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs