March 2012 - Haskell-prime

Re: TypeFamilies vs. FunctionalDependencies & type-level recursion
by Anthony Clayden 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

> > Sorry for the late reply. Thanks Oleg, I take it the Northern hemisphere is now on academic summer holidays. > > [snip] > > > Finally, I still think most of the "magic" in everything > > we've been talking about boils down to being able to > > have a type variable that can take on any type *except* > > a certain handful. This would allow us to avoid > > overlapping instances of both classes and type families, > would allow us to define TypeEq, etc. Moreover, it would > > be a more direct expression of what programmers intend, > > and so make code easier to read. Such a constraint > cannot be part of the context, because > > Alas, such `type variables' with inequality constraints > are quite complex, and the consequences of their > introduction are murky. Let me illustrate. First of all, > the constraint /~ (to be used as t1 /~ Int) doesn't help > to define TypeEq, etc. because constraints are not used > when selecting an instance. ... Yes indeed we can't use constraints when selecting an instance, several posters have pointed this out. I've suggested we call these inequality 'restraints' rather than 'constraints'. And a different syntax has been proposed, similar to pattern guards: type instance TypeEq a b | a /~ b = HTrue > Instances are selected only by > matching a type to the instance head. Instance selection > based on constraints is quite a change in the type checker > , and is unlikely to be implemented. I agree that selecting instances based on constraints would be abig change, but ... Selecting instances based on inequalities is already implemented in GHC and Hugs. (And has been successfully used for over a decade.) You've used it extensively yourself in the HList work, and much other type-level manipulation (such as IsFunction). Unfortunately, it's not called 'instance selection based on inequalities' (or some such), and its implementation got all mixed up with Functional Dependencies, which to my mind is an orthogonal part of the design. Instance selection based on inequalities is called 'Overlapping Instances'. The difficulty in adopting it into Haskell prime is that it isn't thoroughly specified, and you can currently only use it with FunDeps. To avoid confusion with FunDeps, let's imagine we could use overlapping instances with Type Families: type family HMember e l type instance HMember a HNil = HFalse type instance HMember a (HCons a l') = HTrue type instance HMember a (HCons b l') = HMember a l' Selecting that last instance implies a /~ b. (Otherwise the HTrue instance would be selected). Using inequality restraints, we'd write that last instance as: type instance HMember a (HCons b l') | a /~ b = HMember a l' And by putting an explicit inequality we are in fact avoiding the trouble with overlaps and all their implicit logic: The compiler can check that although the instance heads do overlap, the inequality disambiguates the instances. So type inference could only select one instance at most. I think this could be implemented under the new OutsideIn(X) type inference: Inference for the ordinary instances proceeds as usual. Inequalities give rise to implication terms(as used for GADTs), with the inequality in the antecedent: (a /~ b) implies (TypeEq a b ~ HFalse) As with GADTs, inference needs evidence that a /~ b before applying the consequent. There is no danger of clashing with other instances of TypeEq, because the instance (including inequality) doesn't overlap any of them. (I made some long posts to the Haskell-prime list last month, explaining in more detail, and responding to your TTypeable suggestion.) > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime(a)haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

7 22

Re: String != [Char]
by Edward Kmett 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

>From Greg Weber, *Fri Mar 23 14:24:24 CET 2012:* > > This proposal doesn't have to break any codebases. > One possibility is to add the Text type to the standard while > keeping String and marking it as deprecated. I for one would like to go on the record as being against any notion of "deprecating" String. Text is good for many use-cases, but it has very different* asymptotic* behavior for many operations, and cannot serve as a one-size-fits-all replacement for String. I am less strongly against adding Text to the standard, but mostly because I am leery in that it brings a lot of language specification baggage and risks making attempts to explore the design space around Text harder. (e.g. Jasper's GSoC project this last year to investigate using UTF-8 encoded Data.Text would have been a much harder sell if Text was codified in the language standard!) Text has a remarkably (necessarily) large API and for the first time, as far as I can see, the specification would be largely requiring users to use qualified imports to access everything inside of it, which complicates the language standard from a pedagogical standpoint. Isn't it enough that it is part of the platform? -Edward

23 80

Faça parte da minha rede no LinkedIn
by Carlos Camarao Figueiredo 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

LinkedIn ------------ Eu gostaria de adicioná-lo à minha rede profissional no LinkedIn. -Carlos Camarao Carlos Camarao Figueiredo Professor na UFMG Belo Horizonte e Região, Brasil Confirme que você conhece Carlos Camarao Figueiredo: https://www.linkedin.com/e/g4afbk-h0e41yt6-n/isd/6485083729/t-WWDysg/?hs=fa… -- Você está recebendo convites de conexão por e-mail. Clique aqui para parar de recebê-los: http://www.linkedin.com/e/g4afbk-h0e41yt6-n/TxW8ibFUf804HWGRSSBmLzVTlbMbbXm… (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043 - EUA.

1 0

String != [Char]
by Greg Weber 23 Mar '12

23 Mar '12

the text library and Text data type have shown the worth in real world Haskell usage with GHC. I try to avoid String whenever possible, but I still have to deal with conversions and other issues. There is a lot of real work to be done to convert away from [Char], but I think we need to take it out of the language definition as a first step. I can only see one issue with the proposal: it can be convenient to operate on a list of characters. But I think there are plenty of solutions at our disposal. A simple conversion from Text to a list of characters might suffice. In GHC, OverloadedStrings means users would still be free to use String the same way they are now.

15 30

What is a punctuation character?
by Gabriel Dos Reis 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Hi, The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation There is a slight ambiguity here: is that description supposed to be parsed as: (a) "Unicode (symbol or punctuation)", or (b) "(Unicode symbol) or punctuation"? If (b), then what qualifies as "punctuation"? As far as I can tell, that is not defined anywhere in the Report. Is it "punctuation" in the basic ASCII charset or in the extended ASCII charset? Everywhere else the Report has been careful in listing which ASCII characters are meant. Thanks, -- Gaby

7 18

Hierarchical module broken link
by Gabriel Dos Reis 15 Mar '12

15 Mar '12

Hi, The page with link http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/ from http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/HierarchicalModules is broken (404 error). Thanks, -- Gaby

1 0

FW: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral
by Simon Peyton-Jones 06 Mar '12

06 Mar '12

I'm confused too. I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk. S -----Original Message----- From: Serge D. Mechveliani [mailto:mechvel@botik.ru] Sent: 23 December 2011 17:36 To: Simon Peyton-Jones Subject: Re: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 08:14:54PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | 2011/12/22 Edward Kmett <ekmett(a)gmail.com>: > | > The change, however, was a deliberate _break_ with the standard that > | > passed through the library review process a few months ago, and is now > | > making its way out into the wild. > | > | Is it reasonable to enquire how many standard-compliant implementations > | of Haskell there are? > > Just to be clear, the change IS the standard. GHC has to change to be compliant. > At least that's how I understand it. I am confused. I am looking now at the on-line specification of Haskell-2010, 6.3 Standard Haskell Classes. It shows that Integral includes Show: Eq Show \ / Num | Enum Real \ | Integral This is also visible in the further standard class declarations in this chapter. Hence, for `x :: Integral a => a' it is correct to write (shows x ""). And ghc-7.4.0.20111219 does not allow this. So, ghc-7.4.0.20111219 breaks the 2010 standard. Now, Edward Kmett writes that this break is done deliberately. Am I missing something? I witness this for the first time: that GHC deliberately breaks the current Haskell standard. Probably, many people (as myself) dislike this point of the standard. Well, they can write a dummy Show implementation for their type T: showsPrec _ _ = showString "(<t> :: T)", and wait for an improved standard, say, Haskell-II -- ? Regards, ------ Sergei mechvel(a)botik.ru

4 3