[Haskell-cafe] a variant of TDNR (was: Re: Some thoughts on Type-Directed Name Resolution)
qdunkan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 03:09:46 CET 2012
I brought up an idea on another thread, but it was a bit off subject
and I think it got buried. Anyway, I'm curious to know if there are
any obvious problems with this idea, or if it could be pursued
It could be called Tagged Type Directed Name Resolution.
The idea is a # prefix for identifiers. #f is a "type directed function". It
requires the type of its argument to be monomorphic, and is desugared to M.f,
where M is the module defining the type of 'f's argument.
Everything else remains the same. Records wishing the same name must live in
separate modules, but field access looks like: (#a . #b) record
This works to set fields of a record as well. Let M.f be a function from
a record to a lens focused on a certain field of that record. Now you can
M.a :: M.Record -> Lens M.Record M.A
set :: Lens record field -> record -> record
val = set (#a 42) record
which becomes: set (M.a record) 42
Or composed 'set ((#a.#b) record) 42' becomes 'set ((M.a . N.b) record) 42'
An operator with convenient fixity should be able to remove the parens.
As long as the compiler can figure out a monomorphic type expected by the input
of #a then it shouldn't need type annotations.
The thing I'm not sure about is if the ghc typechecker can do this. It would
know that '#a' is a function 'alpha -> beta', then need to figure out what
alpha is. Then once it has a monomorphic type for alpha, then it has to look
up a symbol 'a' in the module defining that type, and only then does it know
the type of beta. If #b.#a style composition is to work, then of course '#b'
would have to hold off until the return type of '#a' has been resolved.
I don't know how hard that would be, or it would even be possible.
This idea is less powerful than other proposals because the #-decorated
function must be able to statically determine a monomorphic type for its
argument. So no structural types. And no records with the same field
name in the same module. Personally that doesn't bother me much since
I try to keep modules small, but perhaps that could be addressed in an
orthogonal nested module feature.
The '#' prefix would mess up people using that as an operator. I guess @ is
More information about the Haskell-Cafe