Re: [GHC] #14070: Allow ‘unsafe’ deriving strategy, deriving code with ‘unsafeCoerce’

1 Aug 2017

      #14070: Allow ‘unsafe’ deriving strategy, deriving code with ‘unsafeCoerce’
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  Iceland_jack      |                Owner:  (none)
            Type:  feature request   |               Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |            Milestone:
       Component:  Compiler          |              Version:  8.0.1
      Resolution:                    |             Keywords:
Operating System:  Unknown/Multiple  |         Architecture:
                                     |  Unknown/Multiple
 Type of failure:  None/Unknown      |            Test Case:
      Blocked By:                    |             Blocking:
 Related Tickets:                    |  Differential Rev(s):
       Wiki Page:                    |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by RyanGlScott):
...
Do they cover legitimate uses of '`UnsafeDeriving`' or are there cases
 where it would still be useful?
My hunch is that just about every use case for this proposed `unsafe
 newtype` deriving strategy would be subsumed by the ability to have
 quantified contexts involving `Coercible`. To use your earlier example:

 {{{#!hs
 class MonadJoin m where
   join_ :: m (m a) -> m a

 newtype M m a = M (m a)
   deriving newtype MonadJoin
 }}}

 In a brave new quantified world, this would generate code to the effect
 of:

 {{{#!hs
 instance (forall a. Coercible (m (M m a)) (m (m a)), MonadJoin m)
     => MonadJoin (M m) where
   join_ = coerce @(forall a. m (m a) -> m a)
                  @(forall a. M m (M m a) -> M m a)
                  join_
 }}}

 Where the `forall a. Coercible (m (M m a)) (m (m a))` bit is needed to
 convince the typechecker that one can `coerce` underneath `m` in the right
 spot. Another possible design for this would be to use an implication
 constraint instead:

 {{{#!hs
 instance (forall a b. Coercible a b => Coercible (m a) (m b), MonadJoin m)
     => MonadJoin (M m) where
   join_ = coerce @(forall a. m (m a) -> m a)
                  @(forall a. M m (M m a) -> M m a)
                  join_
 }}}

 Would this always be the right thing to do? My gut feeling is "yes", since
 if you can coerce between `m (M m a)` and `m (m a)` (for any `a`), it
 feels like you should be able to coerce between `m a` and `m b` for _any_
 pair of inter-`Coercible` types `a` and `b`. But I haven't worked out the
 full details yet, so this is purely speculation on my end for the time
 being.
...
Incidentally is it possible to coerce `Lens s a = forall f. Functor f =>
 (a -> f a) -> (s -> f s)` types?
Sure! The example you gave only doesn't typecheck because you didn't
 expand the `Lens` type synonym:

 {{{#!hs
 {-# LANGUAGE InstanceSigs #-}
 {-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
 {-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
 {-# LANGUAGE TypeApplications #-}

 import Unsafe.Coerce

 type Lens s a = forall f. Functor f => (a -> f a) -> (s -> f s)

 class X f where
   x :: Lens (f a) a

 newtype WrappedX f a = WrapX (f a)

 instance X t => X (WrappedX t) where
   x :: forall a f. Functor f => (a -> f a) -> WrappedX t a -> f (WrappedX
 t a)
   x = unsafeCoerce x' where

     x' :: (a -> f a) -> t a -> f (t a)
     x' = x @t @a
 }}}

 This is important, since the `f` needs to scope over both `x` and `x'`. In
 your example, the `f` tucked underneath the two occurrences of the `Lens`
 type synonyms were distinct.

-- 
Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14070#comment:7
GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler