I don't knw of a formal writeup anywhere.
But does that actually mean what you are trying to write?
With the effective placement of "forall" quantifiers on the outside for u
and v I'd assume that x didn't occur in either u or v. Effectively you have
some scope like forall u v. exists x. ...
Under that view, the warnings are accurate, and the rewrite is pretty
purely syntactic.
I don't see how we could write using our current vocabulary that which you
want.
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Conal Elliott
Is there a written explanation and/or examples of rewrite rules involving a LHS lambda? Since rule matching is first-order, I'm wondering how terms with lambda are matched on the LHS and substituted into on the RHS. For instance, I want to restructure a lambda term as follows:
foo (\ x -> fmap u v) = bar (\ x -> u) (\ x -> v)
My intent is that the terms `u` and `v` may contain `x` and that whatever variable name is actually used in a term being rewritten is preserved so as to re-capture its occurrences on the RHS.
When I write this sort of rule, I get warnings about `x` being defined but not used.
Thanks, -- Conal
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users