A Pointless Library Proposal

[Conor McBride]

Hi

Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Samuel Bronson <naesten <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> On 10/24/06, Russell O'Connor <roconnor <at> theorem.ca> wrote:
>>     
>>> Why have a function body at all?  Shouldn't the type signature be sufficent?
>>>       

Hmmm

>> Remember that type signatures need not be adjacent to function
>> definitions. Now ponder what would happen if you forgot to define a
>> function. Have a clue why it isn't sufficient now?
>>     
>
> If you turn on -Wall in GHC, you would get a warning that your pattern coverage
> is incomplete.  We should make it so that if the pattern coverage is incomplete
> and there is no function body, then that is an error.
>   

So, taking Void to be the colour of the empty bikeshed and

  avoid :: Void -> x

suppose I define

  data WrapVoid = Wrap Void

may I now write

  boo :: WrapVoid -> x

with no equations? Does this cover? Or does it neglect the crucial boo 
(Wrap _|_) case?

What about

  hoo :: Void -> Bool -> x

? Does this cover, or did I forget hoo v True and hoo v False?

Funny business, coverage checking. With GADTs, things become even more 
entertaining...

All the best

Conor