Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: rewrite-with-location proposal

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

Do you mean that the proposal itself won't work, or specifically implementing this features in terms of existing rewrite rules won't work?* ***

** **

I meant the latter.****

** **

I'll admit to ignorance on the internals of GHC, but it seems like doing the shallow source location approach would be far simpler than a full trace. I'd hate to lose a very valuable feature because we can't implement the perfect feature.****

** **

I agree with that sentiment. But in fact I suspect that getting a stack is little or no harder than the shallow thing.****

** **

My “implicit parameter” suggestion was trying to re-use an existing feature, with a small twist, to do what you want, rather than to implement something brand new.

I personally have very little opinion about how this feature is implemented. But would this approach implement the shallow trace, or the full stack trace? Michael

****

Simon****

** **

*From:* michael.snoyman@gmail.com [mailto:michael.snoyman@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Snoyman *Sent:* 25 February 2013 18:19 *To:* Simon Peyton-Jones *Cc:* Alexander Kjeldaas; Simon Hengel; Haskell Cafe

*Subject:* Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: rewrite-with-location proposal****

** **

** **

** **

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:****

I’m afraid the rewrite-rule idea won’t work. RULES are applied during optimisation, when tons of inlining has happened and the program has been shaken around a lot. No reliable source location information is available there.****

****

** **

Do you mean that the proposal itself won't work, or specifically implementing this features in terms of existing rewrite rules won't work?* ***

****

See http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ExplicitCallStack; and please edit it.****

****

** **

One thing I'd disagree with on that page is point (3). While it's certainly nice to have a full stack trace, implementing just shallow call information is incredibly useful. For logging and test framework usages, it in fact completely covers the use case. And even for debugging, I think it would be a massive step in the right direction.****

** **

I'll admit to ignorance on the internals of GHC, but it seems like doing the shallow source location approach would be far simpler than a full trace. I'd hate to lose a very valuable feature because we can't implement the perfect feature.****

****

One idea I had, which that page does not yet describe, is to have an implicit parameter, something like ?loc::Location, with****

errLoc :: ?loc:Location => String -> a****

errLoc s = error (“At “ ++ ?loc ++ “\n” ++ s)****

****

This behave exactly like an ordinary implicit parameter, EXCEPT that if there is no binding for ?loc::Location, then the current location is used. Thus****

****

myErr :: ?loc:Location => Int -> a****

myErr n = errLoc (show n)****

****

foo :: Int -> int****

foo n | n<0 = myErr n****

| otherwise = ...whatever...****

****

When typechecking ‘foo’ we need ?loc:Location, and so the magic is that we use the location of the call of myErr in foo.****

****

Simon****

****

****

****

*From:* haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org [mailto: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Kjeldaas *Sent:* 25 February 2013 12:16 *To:* Simon Hengel *Cc:* Haskell Cafe *Subject:* Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: rewrite-with-location proposal****

****

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Simon Hengel wrote:*** *

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:40:29AM +0100, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:

...

I think there is no need to have a separate REWRITE_WITH_LOCATION rule. What if the compiler instead rewrites 'currentLocation' to the current location? Then you'd just define the rule:

{-# REWRITE "errorLoc" error = errorLoc currentLocation #-}****

REWRITE rules are only enabled with -O. Source locations are also useful during development (when you care more about compilation time than efficient code and hence use -O0). So I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to lump those two things together.****

****

I could imagine that source locations being useful when debugging rewrite rules for example.****

****

I think your argument makes sense, but why not fix that specifically?****

****

{-# REWRITE ALWAYS "errorLoc" error = errorLoc currentLocation #-}****

****

Alexander****

****

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe****

** **