[Haskell-cafe] New type of ($) operator in GHC 8.0 is problematic

[Marcin Mrotek]

>
> I can agree that for a functional language, being able to apply any
> reasonable
> function to any reasonable matching argument has to be doable, but such a
> fundamental operation surely needs to be simple to describe?
>

But it is already rather simple conceptually, it's just that Haskell's kind
signature syntax makes it look hairy. I mean, if you squint enough, this:

($) :: forall (r :: RuntimeRep) (a :: *) (b :: TYPE r). (a -> b) -> a -> b

could be written like:

($) :: RuntimeRep r => (a :: TYPE Lifted) (b :: TYPE r). (a -> b) -> a -> b

or like I've previously suggested (if * is the default kind and wildcards
are allowed in kinds):

($) :: forall a (b :: TYPE _). (a -> b) -> a -> b

I mean, perhaps the syntax could be improved, but the information that:
* a is lifted and boxed
* b can have any kind that has a runtime representation (so unlifted and
unboxed types are ok, but data kinds are not)
has to go somewhere if the ability to write levity-polymorphic functions is
to be given to the user, rather than only available as a one-off hack in
the compiler.

Perhaps going fully dependently typed and giving up on the distinction
between values and types would change that; I'm not sure how for example
Idris would handle levity polymorphism.

Best regards,
Marcin Mrotek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20160209/7796e931/attachment.html>