type signatures in export lists
isaacdupree at charter.net
Mon Jun 18 14:02:36 EDT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Arie Peterson wrote:
> Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> One big question: can their presence have any effect?
>> * on the module doing the exporting (conflict with the presence of
>> in-module type-signature for the same thing; type restriction in-module;
>> monomorphism-restriction-lifting or defaulting-removal of the named thing)
>> * on modules importing this one (can a module re-export something,
>> giving it a more restrictive type-signature?)
> Letting an export-list type signature be equivalent to a normal one has
> the benefit of being simple (to explain and implement). Exporting a
> function with a less polymorphic type than its in-module type seems a bit
> awkward: you would have two different functions (one internal and one
> exported) with the same name.
> If export-list and normal type signatures would be equivalent, the only
> benefit of allowing the former (compared to writing it in a comment) would
> be that the compiler can check it for consistency. Right?
Currently, it is not allowed to provide duplicate equivalent
type-signatures for something. Neither is it allowed to put top-level
type signatures that describe a function you import with the intent of
exporting it; even so, you should be able to specify your module's
interface however the exported functions are provided.
How about this: the presence of an export-list type signature means that
you will get a compile error if the type provided is not equivalent to
the type the exported object has anyway, defined as:
"((exportedObject :: type in export list) :: actual type)" typechecks.
(where "actual type" is after all effects of monomorphism restriction,
defaulting, etc., have taken effect)
>> The type doesn't need to be exported. (which is more likely if it's just
>> a type synonym than a new type.) So what scope are the names in the
>> export-list-type-signature drawn from? It would be odd if a type
>> signature couldn't be given because some names weren't exported; but it
>> would be odd if a module-user looking at the interface saw some types
>> that weren't defined anywhere visible.
> As a user of the module, I would argue that all types (including synonyms)
> appearing in the signature of an exported function should be exported as
> well. Not sure if this needs to be enforced, though.
Probably shouldn't be enforced - compilers could be made to give a
warning for such bad behavior though. Luckily, "just outside" a module
export list is purely a subset of in the module, so ... wait.
module Foo1 where
data Foo = CFoo1
module Foo2 where
data Foo = CFoo2
module Ambig (Foo2.Foo(), foo) where
foo = CFoo2
Not in the presence of ambiguity. Here, to be precise, we have
(foo :: Foo2.Foo). Since the export list allows and requires Foo to be
qualified when Foo is exported, I think it's fair to require that a type
signature for 'foo' in the export list qualifies the Foo type it has
with Foo2, even though from the module-user's point of view, there is
only one Foo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Haskell-prime