
I think the first time I saw a connection to polymorphic recursion was in
Neil Mitchell's supero, which used it as a catch-all fallback plan.
http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/downloads/slides-haskell_with_go_faster_st...
-Edward
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Conal Elliott
Thanks, Ed. It hadn't occurred to me that defunctionalization might be useful for monomorphization. Do you know of a connection?
I'm using a perfect leaf tree type similar to the one you mentioned but indexed by depth:
data Tree :: (* -> *) -> Nat -> * -> * where L :: a -> Tree k 0 a B :: Tree k n (k a) -> Tree k (1+n) a
Similarly for "top-down" perfect leaf trees:
data Tree :: (* -> *) -> Nat -> * -> * where L :: a -> Tree k 0 a B :: k (Tree k n a) -> Tree k (1+n) a
This way, after monomorphization, there won't be any sums remaining.
-- Conal
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Edward Kmett
wrote: Might you have more success with a Reynolds style defunctionalization pass for the polymorphic recursion you can't eliminate?
Then you wouldn't have to rule out things like
data Complete a = S (Complete (a,a)) | Z a
which don't pass that test.
-Edward
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Conal Elliott
wrote: Has anyone worked on a monomorphizing transformation for GHC Core? I understand that polymorphic recursion presents a challenge, and I do indeed want to work with polymorphic recursion but only on types for which the recursion bottoms out statically (i.e., each recursive call is on a smaller type). I'm aiming at writing high-level polymorphic code and generating monomorphic code on unboxed values. This work is part of a project for compiling Haskell to hardware, described on my blog (http://conal.net).
Thanks, - Conal
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users