Possible bug with GADTs?
Dan Knapp
dankna at gmail.com
Wed Aug 18 19:21:09 EDT 2010
Wow, I didn't seriously expect it was a real bug. This is my first
time finding a confirmed compiler bug. Thanks for the response!
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> | {-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
> | module Foo where
> |
> | data TemplateValue t where
> | TemplateList :: [x] -> TemplateValue [x]
> |
> | instance (Eq b) => Eq (TemplateValue b) where
> | (==) (TemplateList p) (TemplateList q) = (==) p q
>
> A good example. Yes, GHC 6.12 fails on this and will always fail because its type checker is inadequate. I'm hard at work [today] on the new typechecker, which compiles it just fine.
>
> Here's the reasoning (I have done a bit of renaming).
>
> * The TemplateList constructor really has type
> TemplateList :: forall a. forall x. (a~[x]) => [x] -> TemplateValue a
>
> * So in the pattern match we have
> (Eq b) available from the instance header
> TemplateList p :: TemplateValue b
> x is a skolem, existentially bound by the pattern
> p :: [x]
> b ~ [x] available from the pattern match
>
> * On the RHS we find we need (Eq [x]).
>
> * So the constraint problem we have is
> (Eq b, b~[x]) => Eq [x]
> ["Given" => "Wanted"]
> Can we prove this? From the two given constraints we can see
> that we also have Eq [x], and that certainly proves Eq [x].
>
>
> Nevertheless, it's a bit delicate. If we didn't notice all the
> consequences of the "given" constraints, we might use the
> top-level Eq a => Eq [a] instance to solve the wanted Eq [x].
> And now we need Eq x, which *isn't* a consequence of (Eq b, b~[x]).
>
>
> Still, there is a unique proof, and GHC (now) finds it. It'll all
> be in 6.16.
>
> Simon
>
>
--
Dan Knapp
"An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to
be devoured." (Konrad Adenauer)
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users
mailing list