Re: Type operators in GHC

Hm. "~" is a sometimes-fine prefix for abstracting over arrowish things,
but perhaps not so appealing for others doing pairish, sumish etc
abstractions.

-- Conal

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Sjoerd Visscher wrote:

> +1. Making ":" the signal for type variables would break even more code,
> f.e. fclabels.
>
> "~" almost means "variable", so I'd like that as a prefix.
>
> Sjoerd
>
> On Sep 15, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Cale Gibbard  wrote:
>
> > There's a fair amount of code out there which uses (~>) as a type
> > variable (we have ~10k lines of heavy arrow code at iPwn). It would be
> > *really* nice if that could be accommodated somehow. But the proposal
> > you just gave at least would allow for a textual substitution, so not
> > quite so bad as having to change everything to prefix notation.
> >
> > On 14 September 2012 19:26, Simon Peyton-Jones 
> wrote:
> >> Fair point.  So you are saying it’d be ok to say
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  data T (.->)  = MkT (Int .-> Int)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> where (.+) is a type variable?   Leaving ordinary (+) available for type
> >> constructors.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If we are inverting the convention I wonder whether we might invert it
> >> completely and use “:” as the “I’m different” herald as we do for
> >> *constructor* operators in terms.  Thus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  data T (:->)  = MkT (Int :-> Int)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That seems symmetrical, and perhaps nicer than having a new notation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>         In terms                                      In types
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> a        Term variable                             Type variable
> >>
> >> A        Data constructor                         Type constructor
> >>
> >> +        Term variable operator               Type constructor operator
> >>
> >> :+      Data constructor operator           Type variable operator
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Any other opinions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: conal.elliott@gmail.com [mailto:conal.elliott@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of
> >> Conal Elliott
> >> Sent: 06 September 2012 23:59
> >> To: Simon Peyton-Jones
> >> Cc: GHC users
> >> Subject: Re: Type operators in GHC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh dear. I'm very sorry to have missed this discussion back in January.
> I'd
> >> be awfully sad to lose pretty infix notation for type variables of kind
> * ->
> >> * -> *. I use them extensively in my libraries and projects, and pretty
> >> notation matters.
> >>
> >> I'd be okay switching to some convention other than lack of leading ':'
> for
> >> signaling that a symbol is a type variable rather than constructor,
> e.g.,
> >> the *presence* of a leading character such as '.'.
> >>
> >> Given the increasing use of arrow-ish techniques and of type-level
> >> programming, I would not classify the up-to-7.4 behavior as a "foolish
> >> consistency", especially going forward.
> >>
> >> -- Conal
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <
> simonpj@microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear GHC users
> >>
> >> As part of beefing up the kind system, we plan to implement the "Type
> >> operators" proposal for Haskell Prime
> >>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/InfixTypeConstructors
> >>
> >> GHC has had type operators for some kind, so you can say
> >>        data a :+: b = Left a | Right b
> >> but you can only do that for operators which start with ":".
> >>
> >> As part of the above wiki page you can see the proposal to broaden this
> to
> >> ALL operators, allowing
> >>        data a + b = Left a | Right b
> >>
> >> Although this technically inconsistent the value page (as the wiki page
> >> discussed), I think the payoff is huge. (And "A foolish consistency is
> the
> >> hobgoblin of little minds", Emerson)
> >>
> >>
> >> This email is (a) to highlight the plan, and (b) to ask about flags.
>  Our
> >> preferred approach is to *change* what -XTypeOperators does, to allow
> type
> >> operators that do not start with :.  But that will mean that *some*
> >> (strange) programs will stop working. The only example I have seen in
> tc192
> >> of GHC's test suite
> >>        {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
> >>        comp :: Arrow (~>) => (b~>c, c~>d)~>(b~>d)
> >>      comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
> >>
> >> Written more conventionally, the signature would look like
> >>        comp :: Arrow arr => arr (arr b c, arr c d) (arr b d)
> >>      comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
> >> or, in infix notation
> >>        {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
> >>        comp :: Arrow arr => (b `arr` c, c `arr` d) `arr` (b `arr` d)
> >>      comp = arr (uncurry (>>>))
> >>
> >> But tc192 as it stands would become ILLEGAL, because (~>) would be a
> type
> >> *constructor* rather than (as now) a type *variable*.  Of course it's
> easily
> >> fixed, as above, but still a breakage is a breakage.
> >>
> >> It would be possible to have two flags, so as to get
> >>  - Haskell 98 behaviour
> >>  - Current TypeOperator behaviuor
> >>  - New TypeOperator behaviour
> >> but it turns out to be Quite Tiresome to do so, and I would much rather
> not.
> >> Can you live with that?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://chrisdone.com/posts/2010-10-07-haskelldb-and-typeoperator-madness.html
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
> --
> Sjoerd Visscher
> https://github.com/sjoerdvisscher/blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>