We don't have to wait for the type checkers to rule. The semantics of GADTs is pretty clear (if it's implemented correctly is another matter). If you write data IsIntT x where IsIntT :: IsIntT Int then there is only one (non-bottom) value in the IsIntT families of types and that is IsIntT::IsInt Int And since Haskell uses nominal type equality there is no type equal to Int that is not Int. The fact that you can derive IsIntC looks like a good ole' bug to me. -- Lennart On Mar 28, 2007, at 23:22 , Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:03:41PM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:32:29AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
newtype Foo = Foo Int deriving(IsIntC)
Note that (Foo 2) + 2 is an attempt to add a Foo and an Int, which cannot possibly compile. So I replaced it with just a 2.
Why not? They are the same type, and I have Curry-Howard proof of this fact.
Stefan
Foo is isomorphic to Int in structure. But it is not the same type. Foo is a new type that is distinct from Int. That means I get type safety -- you cannot pass an Int to a function that expects a Foo and vice versa. Since (+) is defined as (Num a => a->a->a) it cannot add type different types and thus you *cannot* add a Foo and an Int.
Well, I thought I had a non-bottom value of type IsIntT Foo, but when I tried to seq it ghc crashed: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ ticket/1251
Let's postpone this discussion until the people who maintain the typechecker have a chance to rule :)
Stefan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users