Suggesting RankNTypes for ill-formed types
jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl
Thu Aug 18 11:02:28 UTC 2016
It doesn't really matter whether we suggest ExplicitForAll, ScopedTypeVariables or RankNTypes. The
code in question is plainly wrong and should be a parse error. I skimmed the parser code and I
see no easy way of doing this without breaking the fix for #3155 at the same time.
What I would try, I think, is to find a different solution to #3155.
Dnia czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016, Richard Eisenberg napisał:
> I tend to agree with Oleg that suggesting `ScopedTypeVariables` may be more
> helpful to users, even though `ExplicitForAll` is more principled.
> > On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Oleg Grenrus <oleg.grenrus at iki.fi> wrote:
> > FWIW. Often when I encounter that error, I want `ScopedTypeVariables`,
> > yet my code doesn’t always has the scoped type variable used.
> > So even GHC could parse further and propose it to me, there isn’t
> > anything from to do it :(
> > I don’t know if many use /just/ `ExplicitForAll`...
> > - Oleg
> >> On 11 Aug 2016, at 20:30, Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:karolinadrobnik at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >> I am working on my first ticket (#11669, linked below)
> >> and I have some doubts after a little bit of hacking.
> >> There was a hint that an error message should be
> >> changed from the one suggesting RankNTypes to ExplicitForall.
> >> In my opinion it would be quite confusing for the user, especially where
> >> the type is ill-formed. A plain parse error should be shown here.
> >> It is clear that it should be done in such a way after turning on one
> >> of the extensions, but what about the situation where proposed
> >> fix (suggesting RankNTypes/ExplicitForall) won't work?
> >> We should be able to distinguish ill-formed type from the correct one,
> >> even before the extension activation. To be honest - I don't know how to
> >> do it.
> >> Additionally, I am not sure if we can assume that an user wants
> >> to use arbitrary rank (which implies ExplicitForall) or just a forall
> >> keyword. I am for the second one, but it is just my assumption.
> >> And the last minor thing - a type formed in this way also rises an error
> >> suggesting using RankNTypes (as we know that wouldn't solve the
> >> problem):
> >> f :: a. -> Int
> >> f = undefined
> >> Maybe we could treat it as a typo (simple parse error) and propose
> >> an extension activation only when forall was parsed earlier?
> >> That could be tricky.
> >> I'd appreciate some thoughts on this issue because I felt a bit lost
> >> after digging around the parser.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Karolina
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> #11669 - https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11669
> >> <https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11669>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ghc-devs mailing list
> >> ghc-devs at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-devs mailing list
> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Lodz University of Technology
Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata.
Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez pomyłkę
prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie.
This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
More information about the ghc-devs