Marking type constructor arguments as nominal (e.g. Set)
mail at joachim-breitner.de
Sun Aug 18 19:45:58 CEST 2013
now that roles are in HEAD, I could play around a bit with it. They were
introduced to solve the unsoundness of newtype deriving, but there is
also the problem of abstraction: If I define a set type based on an ord
data Set a = Set a -- RHS here just for demonstration
the I don’t want my users to replace a "Set Int" by a "Set (Down Int)",
even though the latter is a newtype of the former. This can be prevented
by forcing the role of "a" to be Nominal (and not Representational, as
it is by default). What I just noticed is that one does not even have to
introduce new syntax for it, one can just use:
type family NominalArg x
type instance (NominalArg x) = x
data Set' a = Set' (NominalArg a)
and get different roles; here the excerpt from --show-iface (is there an
easier way to see role annotations):
data Set a at R
data Set' a at N
The type family does not get into the way, e.g.
conv (Set a) = Set' a
works as usual.
(I now also notice that the parser actually supports role annotations...
but still a nice, backward-compatible trick here).
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
mail at joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Jabber: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C
Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users