RFC: Add HasCallStack constraint to partial Data.List functions.

[Henrik Nilsson]

 > I'm not sure I really agree with that.  There is a rich literature on 
 > effect systems, which decorate types with information about what
 > effects the function has: exceptions, divergence, IO, and the like. 
  > So type like
 >   head :: Partial => [a] -> a
 > where 'Partial =>' expresses the fact that calling this function
 > might lead to a call of 'error' doesn't seem inherently something
 > that doesn't belong in a type system.

I, of course, agree that partiality is an effect. And I have no
issues with effects being reflected in the type system.
We do that all the time with e.g. monads.

If we indeed had something like

    head :: Partial => [a] -> a

that would be both informative and fairly straightforward to
explain to students, for example. (Even if it is not clear to
me that a type class really is the right way to express
partiality of functions: I always thought information about
partiality ought to be tied to the function arrow.)

My point is that "HasCallStack" strongly suggest a specific approach
to monitor the behaviour of a function in case it goes wrong.

To me, at least, that is very operational.

And I would struggle to explain

    head :: HasCallStack => [a] -> a

beyond saying "it's just something that sometimes will help you
with debugging", and deeply hoping no clever student would
ask about the lack of similar annotations for other partial
functions.

Best,

/Henrik



This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment. 

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
where permitted by law.