Re: Are safe coercions safe in the sense of Safe Haskell?

Hi, thank you for these links. Still, it is interesting that also in GHC 7.8 you can have a coerce that is considered “Safe”, although the discussions on Trac concluded that this should not be the case. You can just import coerce via GHC.Prim, which is “Safe-Inferred”. All the best, Wolfgang Am Freitag, den 15.08.2014, 19:40 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:

See https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8745 and https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8827 which discuss this problem at length.

The short answer: It's conceivable that a role-unaware library author would have abstraction expectations that are defeated through the use of `coerce`.

I would strongly welcome a proposal for how to make `coerce`, and hence GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving, to be considered Safe for 7.10.

Richard

On Aug 15, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:

...

Hi,

I would expect the function

coerce :: Coercible a b => a -> b

to be safe in the sense of Safe Haskell. However, the Data.Coerce module is marked “Unsafe”. The coerce function is also available via GHC.Exts and GHC.Prim. The former module is marked “Unsafe”, but the latter is (surprisingly) marked “Safe-Inferred”.

What are the reasons behind this?

All the best, Wolfgang

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users