Fwd: Restricted sums in BoxedRep
david.feuer at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 20:21:21 UTC 2020
Forwarded from Andrew Martin below. I think we want more than just Maybe
(more than one null), but the nesting I described is certainly more
convenience than necessity.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrew Martin <andrew.thaddeus at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Restricted sums in BoxedRep
To: David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
You'll have to forward this to the ghc-devs list to share it with others
since I'm not currently subscribed to it, but I've had this same thought
before. It is discussed at
https://github.com/andrewthad/impure-containers/issues/12. Here's the
> Relatedly, I was thinking the other day that after finishing implementing
> I should really look at seeing if it's possible to add this
> maybe-of-a-lifted value trick straight to GHC. I think that with:
> data RuntimpRep
> = BoxedRep Levity
> | MaybeBoxedRep Levity
> | IntRep
> | ...
> data BuiltinMaybe :: forall (v :: Levity). TYPE v -> TYPE ('MaybeBoxedRep v)
> This doesn't have the nesting issues because the kind system prevents
> nesting. But anyway, back to the original question. I would recommend not
> using Maybe.Unsafe and using unpacked-maybe instead. The latter is
> definitely safe, and it only costs an extra machine word of space in each
> data constructor it gets used in, and it doesn't introduce more
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:47 PM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Null pointers are widely known to be a lousy language feature in general,
> but there are certain situations where they're *really* useful for compact
> representation. For example, we define
> newtype TMVar a = TMVar (TVar (Maybe a))
> We don't, however, actually use the fact that (Maybe a) is lifted. So we
> could represent this much more efficiently using something like
> newtype TMVar a = TMVar (TVar a)
> where Nothing is represented by a distinguished "null" pointer.
> While it's possible to implement this sort of thing in user code (with
> lots of fuss and care), it's not very nice at all. What I'd really like to
> be able to do is represent certain kinds of sums like this natively.
> Now that we're getting BoxedRep, I think we can probably make it happen.
> The trick is to add a special Levity constructor representing sums of
> particular shapes. Specifically, we can represent a type like this if it is
> a possibly-nested sum which, when flattened into a single sum, consists of
> some number of nullary tuples and at most one Lifted or Unlifted type.
> Then we can have (inline) primops to convert between the BoxedRep and the
> sum-of-sums representations.
> Anyone have thoughts on details for what the Levity constructor arguments
> might look like?
-Andrew Thaddeus Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs