You might think that `(->)` should have type `?? -> ? -> *`, and you'd be right. But if we do that we get kind errors when saying {{{ instance Control.Arrow (->) }}} because the expected kind is `* -> * -> *`. The trouble is that the expected/actual stuff in the unifier does not go contra-variant, whereas
#11714: Kind of (->) type constructor is overly constrained -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: bgamari | Owner: Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.2.1 Component: Compiler | Version: 8.1 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Currently the `(->)` type constructor has kind `* -> * -> *` (with some magic to make infix work for unlifted types. To quote the comment attached to `TysPrim.funTyCon`, the kind sub-typing does. Sigh. It really only matters if you use `(->)` in a prefix way, thus: `(->) Int# Int#`. And this is unusual. because they are never in scope in the source }}} This seems to imply that the restrictive kind arose out of the old subkinding story. Now that we have a more principled way of dealing with non-lifted kinds it seems we allow prefix uses to be as polymorphic as infix uses. Something like, {{{#!hs (->) :: forall (rep1 :: RuntimeRep) (rep2 :: RuntimeRep). TYPE rep1 -> TYPE rep2 -> * }}} Not only would this be a win for consistency, but it may also address some of the Core Lint issues that I'm seeing in #11011. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11714 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler