The containers package uses the awkward double name approach. See, for example, the way that Data.Map and Data.Sequence fuse (indexed) maps and indexed) traversals. I know that Edward Kmett is very much opposed to class-based rules as found in Control.Arrow because non-law-abiding instances will behave differently when optimized.
Is it possible to apply GHC rewrite rules to class methods? From what I’ve read and seen, class methods get eliminated early by automatically-generated rules. Is there really no way to postpone such inlining until a later simplifier stage? The GHC Users Guide docs say no, and suggests instead giving a duplicate vocabulary with somewhat awkward names for class methods. I’ve not seen this practice in libraries. I gather that we cannot therefore use class laws as optimizations in the form of rewrite rules, which seems a terrible loss.
In
Control.CategoryandContro, I see rules for class laws but also header comments saying “The RULES for the methods of class Arrow may never fire e.g. compose/arr; see Trac #10528”.l.Arrow I’d appreciate a reality check about my conclusions as well as any strategies for using class laws in optimization.
Thanks, -- Conal
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow- haskell-users