Re: new-typeable, new cast?

I favor keeping them undeprecated as I currently have code that needs the lack of a Typeable constraint there in cases where the argument plays a similar role to the region parameter for ST s, where it *can't* be made Typeable! On the plus side, you may be able to eliminate the requirement that the arguments be of kind * though, rather dramatically increasing the utility of gcast1 and gcast2. -Edward On Jul 22, 2013, at 5:38 AM, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

There seems to be a small tangle. The proposal includes deprecating gcast1 and gcast2 in favor of the poly-kinded gcast. But, there is a small discrepancy between these. Here are the type signatures:

...

gcast :: forall a b c. (Typeable a, Typeable b) => c a -> Maybe (c b) gcast1 :: forall c t t' a. (Typeable (t :: * -> *), Typeable t') => c (t a) -> Maybe (c (t' a))

The difference is that gcast1 does *not* require the variable `a` to be Typeable, whereas defining gcast1 = gcast does require this. Not requiring `a` to be Typeable seems correct to me, as the type signature of gcast1 requires both uses of `a` to be the same. But, gcast isn't smart enough to know that. Here are some ideas of how to proceed:

- Keep gcast1 and gcast2 undeprecated.

I'd say we should go for this first option, because the second one is pretty bad.

Cheers, Pedro

...

- Require clients to add more Typeable constraints (for example, in Data.Data) to get their code to compile with gcast. - Come up with some other workaround, but none is striking me at the moment.

Thoughts?

Richard

On 2013-07-22 09:44, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

I was waiting to respond to Shachaf's email saying "pushed", but instead, I have to say "currently validating".

Expect this by the end of the day. Sorry it's taken so long!

Richard

On 2013-07-22 09:23, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:

...

Thanks for bringing this up again. This was started in my data-proxy branch of base [1], but never really finished. We definitely want to have this in 7.8, and I think there's only some minor finishing work to do (check if we have all the instances we want, document, etc.). Perhaps you can look through what's there already, and what you think is missing? I'm more than happy to accept contributing patches too :-)

Thanks, Pedro

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Shachaf Ben-Kiki wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something, this all looks very straightforward. The > implementation is there, already, in the guise of (gcast Refl). We would > just shuffle the definitions around a bit. Am I indeed missing something?

I think that is the case indeed. Though I agree that it would be a nice addition to Data.Typeable.

This thread is a few months old now, but it looks like people were generally in favor of adding (gcast Refl) to Data.Typeable. I've used it in real code in at least one place since then (where I just defined it locally). It doesn't look like it's actually been added, though -- is it planned to go into HEAD eventually?

Shachaf

Links: ------ [1] https://github.com/ghc/packages-base/tree/data-proxy

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries