Why isn't this Typeable?
david at well-typed.com
Mon Sep 25 19:00:00 UTC 2017
No. What led me down this path is that I was thinking about whether we could simplify the representation and reduce the TCB. The as-yet-incomplete ideas I had (largely based on the concept of using a constructor name as a singletons-style defunctionalization symbol) seem difficult to adapt to the generalization I describe, so I wanted to check first how much that matters.
David FeuerWell-Typed, LLP
-------- Original message --------From: Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu> Date: 9/25/17 2:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: David Feuer <david at well-typed.com> Cc: Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org>, ghc-devs at haskell.org Subject: Re: Why isn't this Typeable?
I suppose this is conceivable, but it would complicate the representation and solver for TypeReps considerably. Do you have a real use case?
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:28 PM, David Feuer <david at well-typed.com> wrote:
> My example wasn't quite the one I intended (although I think it should
> work as well, and it's simpler). Here's the sort of example I really intended:
> data Bar :: forall (j :: forall k. k -> Maybe k) (a :: Type). Proxy (j a) -> Type
> I would expect
> Bar :: Proxy ('Just Int) -> Type
> or, to abuse notation a bit,
> Bar @'Just @Int
> to be Typeable. What I'm really suggesting is that we should distinguish between things that are typeable and
> things that can be decomposed into typeable components. We already make a limited distinction
> here. For example, we have
> 'Just :: forall a. a -> Maybe a
> 'Just itself cannot be Typeable, but once it's applied to a kind variable, it is Typeable.
> 'Just @Int is Typeable even though that (kind) application cannot be broken with App. Similarly, I'd expect
> Foo 'Just to be Typeable even though that (type) application cannot be broken with App (or Fun).
> Putting things in terms of fingerprints, we can offer type-indexed fingerprints
> newtype Finger a = Finger Fingerprint
> for anything we can fingerprint. Is there any difficulty fingerprinting types like Foo 'Just and
> Bar @'Just @Int? Fingerprints are useful for lots of applications where decomposition isn't
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 1:16:37 PM EDT Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>> The problem is that to get Typeable (Foo 'Just), we need Typeable 'Just. However, the kind parameter for Typeable 'Just would be (forall a. a -> Maybe a), making the full constraint Typable (forall a. a -> Maybe a) 'Just. And saying that would be impredicative. In other contexts, 'Just *can* be Typeable, but it's 'Just invisibly instantiated at some monotype for `a`.
>> So I think that this boils down to impredicativity and that the implementation is doing the right thing here.
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 5:45 AM, David Feuer <david at well-typed.com> wrote:
>>> data Foo :: (forall a. a -> Maybe a) -> Type
>>> Neither Foo nor Foo 'Just is Typeable. There seems to be a certain sense to excluding Foo proper, because it can't be decomposed with Fun. But why not Foo 'Just? Is there a fundamental reason, or is that largely an implementation artifact?
>>> David Feuer
>>> Well-Typed, LLP
>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs