Proposed change to Dynamic library: mark it unsafe

[Simon Marlow]

> Proposal:
>=20
>   Replace the class:
>=20
>     class Typeable a where typeOf :: a -> Type
>=20
>   with:
>=20
>     typeOf :: Typeable a =3D> a -> Type
>     typeOf =3D unsafeTypeOf
>=20
>     class Typeable a where unsafeTypeOf :: a -> Type
>=20
>   All existing calls of typeOf should be left as they are.
>   All existing instance declarations should be changed to define
>   unsafeTypeOf instead.

Hmmm.  I normally associate something called 'unsafeBlah' with being
unsafe to use, not unsafe to define, so this seems a little odd.  But I
don't have any better suggestions, and I agree that there ought to be at
least some indication that there's potential unsafety here.

> We also need to clarify the rules for writing correct definitions. =20
> I propose the following concise (but non-constructive) rules:
>=20
> 1) New instances must preserve the invariant that for all values x and
>    y with monomorphic types,
>=20
>      typeOf x =3D=3D typeOf y  iff  x and y have the same type.
>=20
>   It is not sufficient for the types of x and y to have the same
>   representation or to be isomorphic - they have to be considered
>   identical by the Haskell type system.  [This last sentence is
>   redundant but may be helpful.]
>  =20
> 2) For any (possibly bottom) value x whose type is an instance of
>    Typeable,
>  =20
>      typeOf x /=3D _|_ and does not raise an exception
>  =20
> Examples of valid and invalid definitions would also be useful.

Fully agree.  The documentation is in CVS and you have commit access, I
believe :-)  (at least for the old libs, I haven't brought any docs
across to the new libraries yet).

Cheers,
	Simon