Great idea. I've worked on some code that uses SPECIALIZE pragmas with large type signatures, and it would become considerably more elegant if it could use type applications instead.

Vlad

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:25 AM Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Richard and Simon propose to generalise SPECIALISE pragmas to allow
expressions, not just type signatures:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/493
https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/specialise/proposals/0000-specialise-expressions.rst

This does not add anything fundamentally new, because such SPECIALISE
pragmas can be translated using the existing RULES machinery, but it
does make several idioms substantially more convenient:

  * Using type applications in a SPECIALISE pragma to avoid repetition

  * Manual call-pattern specialisation

  * Loop unrolling

Thus I propose we accept this proposal.

Cheers,

Adam


--
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee