#10853: Refine addTopDecls -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: goldfire | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.12.1 Component: Template | Version: 7.10.2 Haskell | Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- This suggested refactoring/documentation task is spurred on by #10486. Readers do not have to read that ticket to understand this task. Currently, `addTopDecls` is restricted in what it can add. In an email exchange with Geoff Mainland (the original implementor of `addTopDecls`), it was unclear exactly why this restriction is in place. So, I propose lifting the restriction. We do have to be careful about ordering. As it is currently implemented, here is what happens: {{{ -- region A, including everything up to but not including a top-level splice $( {- region B, the contents of a top-level splice -} ) -- region C, everything after the splice }}} In addition to those regions, we also have {{{ -- region D, consisting of all declarations added with `addTopDecls`. }}} By reading the code (`TcRnDriver.tc_rn_src_decls`), it seems that the expected behavior should be this: 1. Rename region A. Anything defined in other regions is not in scope. 2. Rename region D, with declarations from region A in scope. 3. Type-check regions A and D together. 4. When running TH code in region B, all declarations from A and D are in scope and can be accessed via `reify` and friends. 5. Combine regions B and C together, and recur to step 1 (where the combined B and C is now a new region A). This all means that A and D are mutually recursive w.r.t. the type-checker but not the renamer. This is a bit peculiar, but not terrible. For example, this means that there could be a function whose definition is in A and type signature in D. Proper mutual recursion would be hard (impossible?) without better renaming support. In any case, I don't see a reason to restrict what's allowed in `addTopDecls`. So, at a minimum, I propose: * Remove restrictions in `addTopDecls` * Document `addTopDecls` generally * Document the above behavior, detailing the interaction between these regions Perhaps better, we could do: * Remove restrictions in `addTopDecls` * Rejigger the implementation of `addTopDecls` to lump region D in with B and C. This looks quite straightforward, and it makes for a simpler story about mutual recursion. This is a potentially-breaking change, if existing code has, say, a function defined in A with its type signature in D. * Document the new, simpler behavior Regardless of which proposal we go with, some testing is in order, to make sure that this is all correct. I've done no testing in formulating this ticket, just reading code. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10853 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler