Here’s how it works:

 

is done by a BuiltinRule: see MkId.mkDictSelId, and the BuiltinRule that is made there.

 

 

 

 

 

Here the intent is that, since the pragmas is in the class decl, the pragma applies to the method selector.

 

I remember Conal raising this before, but I’ve forgotten the resolution.  I’m entirely open to changes here, if someone is willing to do the work, including checking for consequences.

 

Simon

 

From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Conal Elliott
Sent: 06 March 2020 17:37
To: Christiaan Baaij <christiaan.baaij@gmail.com>
Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: Re: Class op rules

 

Thank you for raising this issue, Christiaan! The current policy (very early class-op inlining) is a major difficulty and the main source of fragility in my compiling-to-categories implementation. I have a tediously programmed and delicately balanced collection of techniques to intercept and transform class ops to non-ops early and then transform back late for elimination, but it doesn't work in all situations. Since class operations roughly correspond to operations in various algebraic abstractions---interfaces with laws---I often want to exploit exactly those laws as rewrite rules, and yet those rules currently cannot be used dependably.  - Conal

 

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 7:22 AM Christiaan Baaij <christiaan.baaij@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

 

The other day I was experimenting with RULES and got this warning:

 

src/Clash/Sized/Vector.hs:2159:11: warning: [-Winline-rule-shadowing]
    Rule "map Pack" may never fire
      because rule "Class op pack" for ‘pack’ might fire first
    Probable fix: add phase [n] or [~n] to the competing rule
     |
2159 | {-# RULES "map Pack" map pack = id #-}

 

The warning seems to suggests two things:

1. "Class op" -> "dictionary projection" are implemented as rewrite rules and executed the same way as other user-defined RULES

2. These rules run first, and you cannot run anything before them

 

Now my question is, is 1. actually true? or is that warning just a (white) lie?

If 1. is actually true, would there be any objections to adding a "-1" phase: where RULES specified to start from phase "-1" onward fire before any of the Class op rules.

I'm quite willing to implement the above if A) Class op rules are actually implemented as builtin RULES; B) there a no objections to this "-1" phase.

 

Thanks,

Christiaan

 

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