<div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Thank you. Yes that proposal seems in 'the same ball park'. As Richard's already noted, a H98 data constructor can't _Provide_ any constraints, because it has no dictionaries wrapped up inside. But I'm not asking it to!</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">The current PatSyn signatures don't distinguish between Required-for-building vs Required-for-matching (i.e. deconstructing/reformatting to the PatSyn). This seems no better than 'stupid theta': I'm not asking for any reformatting to pattern-match, just give me the darn components, they are what they are where they are.</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I'm afraid none of this is apparent from the User Guide -- and I even contributed some material to the Guide, without ever understanding that. Before this thread, I took it that 'Required' means for building -- as in for smart constructors. So PatSyns aren't really aimed to be for smart constructors? I should take that material out of the User Guide?<br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">AntC</font></div><div><br></div><div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 10:53, Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:lists@richarde.dev">lists@richarde.dev</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">You're right -- my apologies. Here is the accepted proposal: <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0042-bidir-constr-sigs.rst" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0042-bidir-constr-sigs.rst</a><div><br></div><div>Richard<br><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 5, 2021, at 12:38 PM, David Feuer <<a href="mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.feuer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="auto">To be clear, the proposal to allow different constraints was accepted, but integrating it into the current, incredibly complex, code was well beyond the limited abilities of the one person who made an attempt. Totally severing pattern synonyms from constructor synonyms (giving them separate namespaces) would be a much simpler design.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 5, 2021, 12:33 PM Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:lists@richarde.dev" target="_blank">lists@richarde.dev</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 3, 2021, at 5:38 AM, Anthony Clayden <<a href="mailto:anthony.d.clayden@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">anthony.d.clayden@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">> pattern SmartConstr :: Ord a => () => ...</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Seems to mean:</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">* Required constraint is Ord a -- fine, for building</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">* Provided constraint is Ord a -- why? for matching/consuming</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. Your signature specified that there are no provided constraints: that's your ().</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I'm using `SmartConstr` with some logic inside it to validate/build a well-behaved data structure. But this is an ordinary H98 datatype, not a GADT.</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe there is no way to have provided constraints in Haskell98. You would need either GADTs or higher-rank types.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">This feels a lot like one of the things that's wrong with 'stupid theta' datatype contexts.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're onto something here. Required constraints are very much like the stupid theta datatype contexts. But, unlike the stupid thetas, required constraints are sometimes useful: they might be needed in order to, say, call a function in a view pattern.</div><div><br></div><div>For example:</div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>checkLT5AndReturn :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> (Bool, a)</div><div>checkLT5AndReturn x = (x < 5, x)</div><div><br></div><div>pattern LessThan5 :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> a</div><div>pattern LessThan5 x <- ( checkLT5AndReturn -> (True, x) )</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My view pattern requires (Ord a, Num a), and so I must declare these as required constraints in the pattern synonym type. Because vanilla data constructors never do computation, any required constraints for data constructors are always useless.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">For definiteness, the use case is a underlying non-GADT constructor for a BST</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">> Node :: Tree a -> a -> Tree a -> Tree a</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">> pattern SmartNode :: Ord a => () => Tree a -> a -> Tree a -> Tree a</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">with the usual semantics that the left Tree holds elements less than this node. Note it's the same `a` with the same `Ord a` 'all the way down' the Tree.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does SmartNode need Ord a to match? Or just to produce a node? It seems that Ord a is used only for production, not for matching. This suggests that you want a separate smartNode function (not a pattern synonym) and to have no constraints on the pattern synonym, which can be unidirectional (that is, work only as a pattern, not as an expression).</div><div><br></div><div>It has been mooted to allow pattern synonyms to have two types: one when used as a pattern and a different one when used as an expression. That might work for you here: you want SmartNode to have no constraints as a pattern, but an Ord a constraint as an expression. At the time, the design with two types was considered too complicated and abandoned.</div><div><br></div><div>Does this help?</div><div><br></div><div>Richard</div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>