[Haskell] Views in Haskell

[Claus Reinke]

>   2) There are other reasons why I want to use Haskell-98 and would  
> like to be able to use other compilers.  Thus, I'd want a pattern-binder 
> preprocessor (extending GHC is not as important to me).

I see. though I'd hope that as long as we keep our extensions simple and
general enough, the other implementations will pick them up anyway.

> Here's my motivating example.  Here's a fragment for an STG  
> interpreter in Haskell-98:
> {{{
>   rule_CASE_ELIM (Case p alts, s, h, o) =
>       do
>       ConApp c as <- ptsTo p h
>       let matchAlt (Alt c' vs e) | c == c' = Just (vs,e)
>           matchAlt _                       = Nothing
>       (vs,e) <- matchFirst matchAlt alts
>       return (e `sub` (vs,as), s, h, o)
> }}}

yes, abstract machines have inspired many a pattern match extension!-)

are we in Maybe, or in anything more complex? view patterns don't seem to apply, 
but pattern guards do, and lambda-match helps with the local function pattern 
(ignoring the Match type tag for the moment; given the revival of interest in pattern 
functions, eg., in view patterns, I ought to try and see whether I can get rid of the 
type tag in my library for the special case of Maybe):

{{{
rule_CASE_ELIM =
    (| (Case p alts, s, h, o) 
        | ConApp c as <- ptsTo p h
        , (vs,e) <- matchFirst (| (Alt c' vs e) | c == c' ->(vs,e) ) alts
        -> (e `sub` (vs,as), s, h, o) )
}}}

which isn't quite as abstract as the pattern binder/combinator version,
but at least I can see the scoping, which I am at a loss with in the pattern
binder version:

> I'd like it to have a textual form just a little more abstract, I can  
> do that with pattern binders and some appropriate combinators:
> 
> {{{
>   rule_CASE_ELIM =
>       { (Case p alts    , s, h, o) }
>               &&& ptsTo p h === { ConApp c as  }
>               &&& alts === matchFirst { Alt #c vs e }
>       .->
>         (e `sub` (vs,as), s, h, o)
> }}}
> 
> I'll leave it as an exercise to figure out how the last is  
> parenthesized ;-).

ok, I give up. there seem to be some new combinators, and the pattern 
binder variables are no longer distinguishable (via $). but unless you've 
changed the translation as well, the only way the scopes are going to come 
out right is if the layout is a lie, right? and how does the translation apply to 
pattern binders not in an infix application, in particular, how do vs/e get to
the rhs of .->?

Claus