'lub' and 'both' on strictness - what does it mean for products to have different arity?

Simon Peyton Jones simonpj at microsoft.com
Tue Mar 1 17:01:27 UTC 2016


Joachim is right.  The strictness analyser just looks inside casts, so these unexpectedly ill-typed cases could show up.  For example

f :: T a -> a -> Int
f x y = case x of
          P1 -> case y of (a,b,c) -> a+b+c
          P2 -> case y of (p,q) -> p+q

data T a where
  P1 :: T (Int,Int,Int)
  P2 :: T (Int,Int)

In the P1 branch we have that y::(Int,Int,Int), so we'll get a demand S(SSS).  And similarly in the P2 branch.  Now we combine them.  And there you have it.

Could I ask that you add this example as a Note to the relevant functions, so that the next time someone asks this question they'll find the answer right there?



|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Ömer
|  Sinan Agacan
|  Sent: 19 February 2016 17:27
|  To: ghc-devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org>
|  Subject: 'lub' and 'both' on strictness - what does it mean for
|  products to have different arity?
|  I was looking at implementations of LUB and AND on demand signatures
|  and I found this interesting case:
|      lubStr (SProd s1) (SProd s2)
|          | length s1 == length s2   = mkSProd (zipWith lubArgStr s1 s2)
|          | otherwise                = HeadStr
|  The "otherwise" case is interesting, I'd expect that to be an error.
|  I'm trying to come up with an example, let's say I have a case
|  expression:
|      case x of
|         P1 -> RHS1
|         P2 -> RHS2
|  and y is used in RHS1 with S(SS) and in RHS2 with S(SSS). This seems to
|  me like a type error leaked into the demand analysis.
|  Same thing applies to `bothDmd` too. Funnily, it has this extra comment
|  on this same code:
|      bothStr (SProd s1) (SProd s2)
|          | length s1 == length s2   = mkSProd (zipWith bothArgStr s1 s2)
|          | otherwise                = HyperStr  -- Weird
|  Does "Weird" here means "type error and/or bug" ?
|  Should I try replacing these cases with panics and try to validate?
|  _______________________________________________
|  ghc-devs mailing list
|  ghc-devs at haskell.org
|  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail.ha
|  skell.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fghc-
|  devs&data=01%7c01%7csimonpj%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7cdd8ae326a8e14ef8
|  9e8608d339520cb9%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sRFRKgj3y
|  zQdEZT4y7KLk18cP43Rv1J%2bx8oPZyr1QzA%3d

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list