On 17 May 2012 23:50, Ryan Newton
Thanks David.
I'm glad to see it was discussed in the wiki. (Btw, my 2 cents is that I like the comment pragmas more than new keywords.)
Sure, the proposed syntax wasn't a serious proposal as it has backwards compatibility issues so pragmas are the better choice. It's just a clearer syntax when discussing the semantics of the idea.
The issue that I think doesn't make it into the wiki is of splitting, not modules, but type-classes. That's where I think it becomes a more serious issue.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Let me know how Antoine's suggestion works out for you and any other feedback you have please.
Do you think a symbol-level Safe Haskell would be able to distinguish one method of a type class as unsafe, while the others are safe?
I think so. I'm not very familiar with the type checker in GHC or typechecking in general but looking through the code just then it seems doable. There doesn't seem anything other than maybe some hard engineering work that would prevent this. ~ David
-Ryan
P.S. In my two examples -- There's only one "Acc" type and Accelerate's "fold" can pretty easily be moved into an .Unsafe module, though it breaks the one-giant-module-for-the-whole-programming-model thing it has going now. In the Par example on the other hand type classes are used to abstract over different implementations, so that's where we run into the safe/unsafe factoring problem.