[GHC] #10114: Kind mismatches with AnyK in rank-2 types
GHC
ghc-devs at haskell.org
Tue Mar 10 04:58:17 UTC 2015
#10114: Kind mismatches with AnyK in rank-2 types
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: cam | Owner:
Type: bug | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: Compiler | Version: 7.8.4
Resolution: | Keywords:
Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture:
Type of failure: GHC rejects | Unknown/Multiple
valid program | Test Case:
Blocked By: | Blocking:
Related Tickets: | Differential Revisions:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by goldfire):
* cc: sweirich@… (added)
Comment:
Replying to [comment:5 simonpj]:
> So I think I retract my claim in comment:1. Perhaps we do want to
generalise "inside".
I agree with your (now retracted) claim.
If `T = forall k1 k2 (f :: k1 -> k2) (a :: k1). f a`, then I think `T`'s
type would have to be `k2`, which is nonsense. As I understand it, the
kind of a forall-type is the kind of the body of the forall-type.
>
> Can anyone say why it is "generally more common to restrict the body of
a forall to have kind `*`"? I can't articulate a clear argument.
This claim of mine is direct from Stephanie. Stephanie, do you know why
this is?
>
> In GHC's case, a good reason not to do this was types like `forall a. a
-> (# a, a #)`, but levity polymorpism will help here.
I don't think that's quite what you want to say, because the kind of the
body of that forall is `*`! Maybe `forall a. (# a, a #)`?
I don't see how levity polymorphism fixes this problem. Even with levity
polymorphism, the kind of the body of that last forall is still `#`.
--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10114#comment:6>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
More information about the ghc-tickets
mailing list