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 <conal@conal.net> wrote:

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