Could we promote unlifted tuples?

[Richard Eisenberg]

You have made an invalid assumption that there exists a semantics for type-level reduction in Haskell. There doesn't. Without such a well-defined evaluation order, it's hard to talk about lifted kinds vs. unlifted kinds.

Perhaps another way of slicing this exists, though. Does #7259 (https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7259) solve your problem? I think so. Unfortunately, I've listed that as "Rocket Science" on my list of tickets that I'm interested in.

Richard

On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:25 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> At present, currying and uncurrying at the type level doesn't seem to
> work terribly well. In particular, the kinds
> 
> (a, b) -> c
> 
> and
> 
> a -> b -> c
> 
> aren't really isomorphic, because (a, b) can be stuck. This makes some
> things (like expressing Atkey-style indexed functors in terms of
> McBride-style ones) rather awkward, and difficult or impossible to
> really get quite right. The thought came to me that maybe we could
> allow unlifted tuples to be promoted. Then something of the kind (# a,
> b #) would unconditionally unify with '(# a, b #). The restrictions on
> how values of unlifted tuple types can be used would presumably
> translate directly to restrictions on how types of unlifted tuple kind
> can be used.
> 
> David Feuer
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs