# D2038: [WIP] TysPrim: Generalize kind of (->)

Simon Peyton Jones simonpj at microsoft.com
Tue Jan 31 22:41:57 UTC 2017

```Replying by email because I'm on  a train.

Simon

Huh.   Put otherwise, your point is this.  Suppose we
have the following kind for `(->)`:

(->) :: forall v1 v2 r1 r2.  TYPE v1 r1 -> TYPE v2 r2 -> Type

To coerce from

(C a -> Int) to (a -> Int)

we'd have to cough up a coercion `g`:

g :    (->) Vanilla    Vanilla Ptr Ptr (C a) Int

~R (->) Constraint Vanilla Ptr Ptr a     Int

And now (Nth 1 g :: Vanilla ~R Constraint).  Nothing about
`KindCo` there; it's just that `(->)` takes some kind
arguments.

But that can only happen if `(->)` has suitable roles.
What if it doesn't?

What if we just had an axiom

axArrow v ::    (->) Vanilla    v

~R (->) Constraint v

or something like that.   Then we get

[W] g :    (->) Vanilla    Vanilla Ptr Ptr (C a) Int

~R (->) Constraint Vanilla Ptr Ptr a     Int

We decompose partly and solve thus

g = (axArrow Vanilla) <Ptr> <Ptr> axC <Int>

Simon

Sent: 31 January 2017 12:51
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D2038: [WIP] TysPrim: Generalize kind of (->)

To avoid being able to extract ContraintRep ~R LiftedPtrRep we decided to weaken one of the coercion constructors, the one that gets a kind coercion from a type coercion. We don't need it, and it's awkward here.

The problem is that we need it with this patch. I was able to weaken this coercion constructor (KindCo) in my patch D3023<https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3023>, but this patch uses it in a fundamental way that we can't get around. To wit:

class C a where

meth :: a

axC :: (C a :: Constraint) ~R (a :: Type)

Now, we wish to cast C a -> a to a -> a.. This cast will look like (->) ?? <LiftedRep> axC <a>. What goes in the ??? It's got to be something involving KindCo axC, which is disallowed as per our earlier decision. Therein lies the problem.

As for reify: Yes, I'm agreed with that email. But is that implemented yet? Is a design settled on? I don't see a ghc-proposal. Are we wiling to take a dependency on that work in order to get this done?

To be clear, my chief worry isn't that these problems cannot be solved by any means -- I'm just worried about the timing of this all and our desire to get 8.2 out the door.

REPOSITORY

REVISION DETAIL