Re: Removing MonadFail from Monad

* Andreas Abel [2013-12-17 10:53:21+0100]

On 17.12.2013 00:32, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:

...

* David Luposchainsky [2013-12-16 23:57:19+0100]

...

...

I don't understand the restriction "is defined via data" since I am not aware of defining constructors outside of data or with something other than the data keyword. Please clarify.

I meant "data and not newtype". If "Only" is a newtype data constructor, the pattern is irrefutable by design, is it not?

One notable case of one-constructor types defined not via data is tuples. You certainly don't want warnings for that!

Should not tuple types be understood as

data (,) a b = (,) a b data (,,) a b c = (,,) a b c

making them one-constructor types?!

You may think of it this way. But for the purposes of this proposal, tuples shouldn't be treated like data types, because there's no possibility they will every be extended with more constructors.

...

Regarding newtypes vs data, I'm not so sure it should make a difference. It's customary to make one-field types newtypes, and then, if one realizes that more fields are needed, turn them into proper data types.

I agree. What operational semantics is concerned (this mean the execution model of Haskell in the programmer's mind),

newtype = data

Not really. There's a semantic difference (both in operational and denotational semantics) — see http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Newtype Not that this is relevant for this discussion. Roman