Unlifted types can't be used polymorphically or in instance declarations, so this makes it impossible to do something like instance Generic Int# or store an Int# in one branch of a (:*:), preventing generics from doing anything in #-land. (unless someone has found a way to hack around this). I would be okay with implementing a generics-based approach, but we'd have to add a caveat that it will only work out-of-the-box on GHC 8.0 or later, due to TH's need to look up package information. (We could give users the ability to specify a package name manually as a workaround.) If this were added, where would be the best place to put it? th-lift? generic-deriving? template-haskell? A new package (lift-generics)? Ryan S. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Pickering wrote:

Continuing my support of the generics route. Is there a fundamental reason why it couldn't handle unlifted types? Given their relative paucity, it seems like a fair compromise to generically define lift instances for all normal data types but require TH for unlifted types. This approach seems much smoother from a maintenance perspective.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Ryan Scott wrote:

...

There is a Lift typeclass defined in template-haskell [1] which, when a data type is an instance, permits it to be directly used in a TH quotation, like so

data Example = Example

instance Lift Example where lift Example = conE (mkNameG_d "<package-name>" "<module-name>" "Example")

e :: Example e = [| Example |]

Making Lift instances for most data types is straightforward and mechanical, so the proposal is to allow automatic derivation of Lift via a -XDeriveLift extension:

data Example = Example deriving Lift

This is actually a pretty a pretty old proposal [2], dating back to 2007. I wanted to have this feature for my needs, so I submitted a proof-of-concept at the GHC Trac issue page [3].

The question now is: do we really want to bake this feature into GHC? Since not many people opined on the Trac page, I wanted to submit this here for wider visibility and to have a discussion.

Here are some arguments I have heard against this feature (please tell me if I am misrepresenting your opinion):

* We already have a th-lift package [4] on Hackage which allows derivation of Lift via Template Haskell functions. In addition, if you're using Lift, chances are you're also using the -XTemplateHaskell extension in the first place, so th-lift should be suitable. * The same functionality could be added via GHC generics (as of GHC 7.12/8.0, which adds the ability to reify a datatype's package name [5]), if -XTemplateHaskell can't be used. * Adding another -XDerive- extension places a burden on GHC devs to maintain it in the future in response to further Template Haskell changes.

Here are my (opinionated) responses to each of these:

* th-lift isn't as fully-featured as a -XDerive- extension at the moment, since it can't do sophisticated type inference [6] or derive for data families. This is something that could be addressed with a patch to th-lift, though. * GHC generics wouldn't be enough to handle unlifted types like Int#, Char#, or Double# (which other -XDerive- extensions do). * This is a subjective measurement, but in terms of the amount of code I had to add, -XDeriveLift was substantially simpler than other -XDerive extensions, because there are fewer weird corner cases. Plus, I'd volunteer to maintain it :)

Simon PJ wanted to know if other Template Haskell programmers would find -XDeriveLift useful. Would you be able to use it? Would you like to see a solution other than putting it into GHC? I'd love to hear feedback so we can bring some closure to this 8-year-old feature request.

Ryan S.

----- [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/template-haskell-2.10.0.0/docs/Language-H... [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/template-haskell/2007-October/000635.html [3] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830 [4] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift [5] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10030 [6] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830#comment:11 _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

| I don't think there's any fundamental reason why unboxed fields | prevent a Generic instance, as long as we're happy that unboxed values | will be re-boxed in the generic representation. It simply seems as if Interesting and quite reasonable idea, as an extension to `deriving(Generic)`. Make a ticket? Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | Andres Loeh | Sent: 08 September 2015 13:00 | To: Ryan Scott | Cc: GHC developers | Subject: Re: Proposal: Automatic derivation of Lift | | I don't think there's any fundamental reason why unboxed fields | prevent a Generic instance, as long as we're happy that unboxed values | will be re-boxed in the generic representation. It simply seems as if | nobody has thought of implementing this. As an example, consider the | following hand-written example which works just fine: | | {-# LANGUAGE MagicHash, KindSignatures, PolyKinds, TypeOperators, | TypeFamilies #-} module GenUnboxed where | | import GHC.Exts | import GHC.Generics | import Generics.Deriving.Eq | | data UPair = UPair Int# Char# | | instance Generic UPair where | type Rep UPair = K1 R Int :*: K1 R Char | from (UPair x y) = K1 (I# x) :*: K1 (C# y) | to (K1 (I# x) :*: K1 (C# y)) = UPair x y | | instance GEq UPair | | test :: Bool | test = let p = UPair 3# 'x'# in geq p p | | Cheers, | Andres | | On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Ryan Scott | wrote: | > Unlifted types can't be used polymorphically or in instance | > declarations, so this makes it impossible to do something like | > | > instance Generic Int# | > | > or store an Int# in one branch of a (:*:), preventing generics from | > doing anything in #-land. (unless someone has found a way to hack | > around this). | > | > I would be okay with implementing a generics-based approach, but | we'd | > have to add a caveat that it will only work out-of-the-box on GHC | 8.0 | > or later, due to TH's need to look up package information. (We could | > give users the ability to specify a package name manually as a | > workaround.) | > | > If this were added, where would be the best place to put it? th- | lift? | > generic-deriving? template-haskell? A new package (lift-generics)? | > | > Ryan S. | > | > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Pickering | > wrote: | >> Continuing my support of the generics route. Is there a fundamental | >> reason why it couldn't handle unlifted types? Given their relative | >> paucity, it seems like a fair compromise to generically define lift | >> instances for all normal data types but require TH for unlifted | types. | >> This approach seems much smoother from a maintenance perspective. | >> | >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Ryan Scott | wrote: | >>> There is a Lift typeclass defined in template-haskell [1] which, | >>> when a data type is an instance, permits it to be directly used in | a | >>> TH quotation, like so | >>> | >>> data Example = Example | >>> | >>> instance Lift Example where | >>> lift Example = conE (mkNameG_d "<package-name>" | >>> "<module-name>" "Example") | >>> | >>> e :: Example | >>> e = [| Example |] | >>> | >>> Making Lift instances for most data types is straightforward and | >>> mechanical, so the proposal is to allow automatic derivation of | Lift | >>> via a -XDeriveLift extension: | >>> | >>> data Example = Example deriving Lift | >>> | >>> This is actually a pretty a pretty old proposal [2], dating back | to | >>> 2007. I wanted to have this feature for my needs, so I submitted a | >>> proof-of-concept at the GHC Trac issue page [3]. | >>> | >>> The question now is: do we really want to bake this feature into | GHC? | >>> Since not many people opined on the Trac page, I wanted to submit | >>> this here for wider visibility and to have a discussion. | >>> | >>> Here are some arguments I have heard against this feature (please | >>> tell me if I am misrepresenting your opinion): | >>> | >>> * We already have a th-lift package [4] on Hackage which allows | >>> derivation of Lift via Template Haskell functions. In addition, if | >>> you're using Lift, chances are you're also using the | >>> -XTemplateHaskell extension in the first place, so th-lift should | be suitable. | >>> * The same functionality could be added via GHC generics (as of | GHC | >>> 7.12/8.0, which adds the ability to reify a datatype's package | name | >>> [5]), if -XTemplateHaskell can't be used. | >>> * Adding another -XDerive- extension places a burden on GHC devs | to | >>> maintain it in the future in response to further Template Haskell | >>> changes. | >>> | >>> Here are my (opinionated) responses to each of these: | >>> | >>> * th-lift isn't as fully-featured as a -XDerive- extension at the | >>> moment, since it can't do sophisticated type inference [6] or | derive | >>> for data families. This is something that could be addressed with | a | >>> patch to th-lift, though. | >>> * GHC generics wouldn't be enough to handle unlifted types like | >>> Int#, Char#, or Double# (which other -XDerive- extensions do). | >>> * This is a subjective measurement, but in terms of the amount of | >>> code I had to add, -XDeriveLift was substantially simpler than | other | >>> -XDerive extensions, because there are fewer weird corner cases. | >>> Plus, I'd volunteer to maintain it :) | >>> | >>> Simon PJ wanted to know if other Template Haskell programmers | would | >>> find -XDeriveLift useful. Would you be able to use it? Would you | >>> like to see a solution other than putting it into GHC? I'd love to | >>> hear feedback so we can bring some closure to this 8-year-old | >>> feature request. | >>> | >>> Ryan S. | >>> | >>> ----- | >>> [1] | >>> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/template-haskell- | 2.10.0.0/docs/La | >>> nguage-Haskell-TH-Syntax.html#t:Lift | >>> [2] | >>> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/template-haskell/2007- | October/000 | >>> 635.html [3] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830 | >>> [4] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift | >>> [5] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10030 | >>> [6] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830#comment:11 | >>> _______________________________________________ | >>> ghc-devs mailing list | >>> ghc-devs@haskell.org | >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs | > _______________________________________________ | > ghc-devs mailing list | > ghc-devs@haskell.org | > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs | _______________________________________________ | ghc-devs mailing list | ghc-devs@haskell.org | http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

I proposed automated derivation of Lift earlier (this year even?), but it got shot down as "needless and trivial to do using TH", so if people are now in favour consider me a very strong +1. This would make it significantly easier to implement an efficient version of https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ValidateMonoLiterals proposal as a library using just TH. Cheers, Merijn

On 8 Sep 2015, at 21:01, Ryan Scott wrote:

Sorry, I forgot to reply-all earlier.

...

I hacked this up quickly just to show that it works in principle. In practice, I think it's good to not just represent Int# as Int, but as something like UInt where

data UInt = UInt Int#

i.e., is isomorphic to an Int, but distinguishable. Alternatively, have a generic "unboxed" flag that could be inserted as a tag into the surrounding K.

I suppose we'd have to decide which is easier for programmers to use. Do we introduce UInt, UChar, et al. and require that users define instances of the desired typeclass for them:

instance Lift UInt where lift (UInt i) = litE (intPrimL (I# i))

or do we introduce an unboxed flag and require users to write generic GLift instances using that flag:

instance GLift (K1 Unboxed Int) where lift (K1 (Int i)) = litE (intPrimL (I# i))

The former has the advantage that you wouldn't need to change the GLift code to distinguish between (K1 Unboxed Int) and (K1 R Int), which might be a potential source of confusion for programmers. On the other hand, having an Unboxed flag requires only introducing one new data type, as opposed to a separate data type for each of the unlifted types that we want to work over.

Ryan S.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Andres Loeh wrote:

...

I don't think there's any fundamental reason why unboxed fields prevent a Generic instance, as long as we're happy that unboxed values will be re-boxed in the generic representation. It simply seems as if nobody has thought of implementing this. As an example, consider the following hand-written example which works just fine:

{-# LANGUAGE MagicHash, KindSignatures, PolyKinds, TypeOperators, TypeFamilies #-} module GenUnboxed where

import GHC.Exts import GHC.Generics import Generics.Deriving.Eq

data UPair = UPair Int# Char#

instance Generic UPair where type Rep UPair = K1 R Int :*: K1 R Char from (UPair x y) = K1 (I# x) :*: K1 (C# y) to (K1 (I# x) :*: K1 (C# y)) = UPair x y

instance GEq UPair

test :: Bool test = let p = UPair 3# 'x'# in geq p p

Cheers, Andres

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Ryan Scott wrote:

...

Unlifted types can't be used polymorphically or in instance declarations, so this makes it impossible to do something like

instance Generic Int#

or store an Int# in one branch of a (:*:), preventing generics from doing anything in #-land. (unless someone has found a way to hack around this).

I would be okay with implementing a generics-based approach, but we'd have to add a caveat that it will only work out-of-the-box on GHC 8.0 or later, due to TH's need to look up package information. (We could give users the ability to specify a package name manually as a workaround.)

If this were added, where would be the best place to put it? th-lift? generic-deriving? template-haskell? A new package (lift-generics)?

Ryan S.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Pickering wrote:

...

Continuing my support of the generics route. Is there a fundamental reason why it couldn't handle unlifted types? Given their relative paucity, it seems like a fair compromise to generically define lift instances for all normal data types but require TH for unlifted types. This approach seems much smoother from a maintenance perspective.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Ryan Scott wrote:

...

There is a Lift typeclass defined in template-haskell [1] which, when a data type is an instance, permits it to be directly used in a TH quotation, like so

data Example = Example

instance Lift Example where lift Example = conE (mkNameG_d "<package-name>" "<module-name>" "Example")

e :: Example e = [| Example |]

Making Lift instances for most data types is straightforward and mechanical, so the proposal is to allow automatic derivation of Lift via a -XDeriveLift extension:

data Example = Example deriving Lift

This is actually a pretty a pretty old proposal [2], dating back to 2007. I wanted to have this feature for my needs, so I submitted a proof-of-concept at the GHC Trac issue page [3].

The question now is: do we really want to bake this feature into GHC? Since not many people opined on the Trac page, I wanted to submit this here for wider visibility and to have a discussion.

Here are some arguments I have heard against this feature (please tell me if I am misrepresenting your opinion):

* We already have a th-lift package [4] on Hackage which allows derivation of Lift via Template Haskell functions. In addition, if you're using Lift, chances are you're also using the -XTemplateHaskell extension in the first place, so th-lift should be suitable. * The same functionality could be added via GHC generics (as of GHC 7.12/8.0, which adds the ability to reify a datatype's package name [5]), if -XTemplateHaskell can't be used. * Adding another -XDerive- extension places a burden on GHC devs to maintain it in the future in response to further Template Haskell changes.

Here are my (opinionated) responses to each of these:

* th-lift isn't as fully-featured as a -XDerive- extension at the moment, since it can't do sophisticated type inference [6] or derive for data families. This is something that could be addressed with a patch to th-lift, though. * GHC generics wouldn't be enough to handle unlifted types like Int#, Char#, or Double# (which other -XDerive- extensions do). * This is a subjective measurement, but in terms of the amount of code I had to add, -XDeriveLift was substantially simpler than other -XDerive extensions, because there are fewer weird corner cases. Plus, I'd volunteer to maintain it :)

Simon PJ wanted to know if other Template Haskell programmers would find -XDeriveLift useful. Would you be able to use it? Would you like to see a solution other than putting it into GHC? I'd love to hear feedback so we can bring some closure to this 8-year-old feature request.

Ryan S.

----- [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/template-haskell-2.10.0.0/docs/Language-H... [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/template-haskell/2007-October/000635.html [3] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830 [4] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift [5] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10030 [6] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1830#comment:11 _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

---

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

---

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