#14917: Allow levity polymorhism in binding position -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: andrewthad | Owner: (none) Type: feature | Status: new request | Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.2.2 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple LevityPolymorphism | Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- The main problem with levity polymorphism in a binding position is that it's impossible to do codegen since the calling convention depending on the instantiation of the runtime representation variable. From the paper, we have the following rejected example code: {{{ bTwice :: ∀ (r :: RuntimeRep) (a :: TYPE r). Bool → a → (a → a) → a }}} However, if you are able to inline the function, this problem disappears. You would need a guarantee stronger than what the `INLINE` pragma provides though since the `INLINE` pragma still allows the function to be fed as an argument to a higher-order function. I'll refer to a hypothetical new pragma as `INLINE MANDATE`. This pragma causes a compile-time error to be admitted if the function is ever used in a way that would cause it to not be inlined. Now `bTwice` would be writeable: {{{ {-# INLINE MANDATE #-} bTwice :: ∀ (r :: RuntimeRep) (a :: TYPE r). Bool → a → (a → a) → a }}} The function definition would be provide in the `.hi` file just as it would be for a function marked as `INLINE`, but unlike the `INLINE` counterpart, there would be no generated code for this function, since generating the code would be impossible. I have several uses for this in mind. I often want a levity-polymorphic variant `ST`. With `INLINE MANDATE`, I still wouldn't get `do` notation, but I could write: {{{ -- This newtype is already allowed today newtype STL s (a :: TYPE r) = STL (State# s -> (# s, a #) #) intA, intB, intC :: STL s Int# wordA, wordB :: Int# -> STL s Word# {-# INLINE MANDATE #-} (>>=.) :: STL s a -> (a -> STL s b) -> STL s b STL a >>=. g = STL (\s0 -> case a s0 of (# s1, v #) -> case g v of STL f -> f s1 myFunc :: STL s Word# myFunc = intA >>=. \a -> intB >>=. \b -> intC >>=. \c -> wordA a >>=. \wa -> wordB b >>=. \wb -> ... -- do something with the data }}} I would appreciate any feedback on this. If there's something that makes this fundamentally impossible, that would be good to know. Or if other people feel like this would be useful, that would be good to know as well. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14917 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler