MonadFail proposal (MFP): Moving fail out of Monad

[David Feuer]

Pattern matching on `undefined` is not like pattern match failure.
Single-constructor types are only special if they're unlifted:
`newtype` and GHC's unboxed tuples are the only examples I know of,
and you can't use unboxed tuples in this context.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
<g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org> wrote:
> Are you sure that desugaring works this way? If yes, this should be
> considered a bug and be fixed, I would say. It is very illogical.
>
> All the best,
> Wolfgang
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2015, 16:23 +0100 schrieb David Turner:
>> AIUI the point about ⊥ and (⊥, ⊥) being different doesn't matter here:
>> a bind for a single-constructor datatype never desugars in a way that
>> uses fail (which isn't to say that it can't be undefined)
>>
>> For instance:
>>
>> runErrorT (do { (_,_) <- return undefined; return () } :: ErrorT String IO ())
>>
>> throws an exception, even though the bind is in ErrorT where fail just
>> returns left:
>>
>> runErrorT (do { fail "oops"; return () } :: ErrorT String IO ())
>>
>> => Left "oops"
>>
>> Hope that helps, and hope I understand correctly!
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 11 June 2015 at 16:08, Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org> wrote:
>> > Hi David,
>> >
>> > thank you very much for this proposal. I think having fail in Monad is
>> > just plain wrong, and I am therefore very happy to see it being moved
>> > out.
>> >
>> > I have some remarks, though:
>> >
>> >> A class of patterns that are conditionally failable are `newtype`s,
>> >> and single constructor `data` types, which are unfailable by
>> >> themselves, but may fail if matching on their fields is done with
>> >> failable paterns.
>> >
>> > The part about single-constructor data types is not true. A
>> > single-constructor data type has a value ⊥ that is different from
>> > applying the data constructor to ⊥’s. For example, ⊥ and (⊥, ⊥) are two
>> > different values. Matching ⊥ against the pattern (_, _) fails, matching
>> > (⊥, ⊥) against (_, _) succeeds. So single-constructor data types are not
>> > different from all other data types in this respect. The dividing line
>> > really runs between data types and newtypes. So only matches against
>> > patterns C p where C is a newtype constructor and p is unfailable should
>> > be considered unfailable.
>> >
>> >>   - Applicative `do` notation is coming sooner or later, `fail` might
>> >>     be useful in this more general scenario. Due to the AMP, it is
>> >>     trivial to change the `MonadFail` superclass to `Applicative`
>> >>     later. (The name will be a bit misleading, but it's a very small
>> >>     price to pay.)
>> >
>> > I think it would be very misleading having a MonadFail class that might
>> > have instances that are not monads, and that this is a price we should
>> > not pay. So we should not name the class MonadFail. Maybe, Fail would be
>> > a good name.
>> >
>> >> I think we should keep the `Monad` superclass for three main reasons:
>> >>
>> >>   - We don't want to see `(Monad m, MonadFail m) =>` all over the place.
>> >
>> > But exactly this will happen if we change the superclass of (Monad)Fail
>> > from Monad to Applicative. So it might be better to impose a more
>> > light-weight constraint in the first place. Functor m might be a good
>> > choice.
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> > Wolfgang
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ghc-devs mailing list
>> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries