</para>
<para>
-Executive summary of our extensions:
-</para>
-
- <variablelist>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Unboxed types and primitive operations:</Term>
- <listitem>
- <para>You can get right down to the raw machine types and
- operations; included in this are “primitive
- arrays” (direct access to Big Wads of Bytes). Please
- see <XRef LinkEnd="glasgow-unboxed"> and following.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Type system extensions:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para> GHC supports a large number of extensions to Haskell's
- type system. Specifically:</para>
-
- <variablelist>
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Multi-parameter type classes:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="multi-param-type-classes"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Functional dependencies:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="functional-dependencies"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Implicit parameters:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="implicit-parameters"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Linear implicit parameters:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="linear-implicit-parameters"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Local universal quantification:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="universal-quantification"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Extistentially quantification in data types:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="existential-quantification"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Scoped type variables:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>Scoped type variables enable the programmer to
- supply type signatures for some nested declarations,
- where this would not be legal in Haskell 98. Details in
- <xref LinkEnd="scoped-type-variables">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
- </variablelist>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Pattern guards</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>Instead of being a boolean expression, a guard is a list
- of qualifiers, exactly as in a list comprehension. See <xref
- LinkEnd="pattern-guards">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Data types with no constructors</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>See <xref LinkEnd="nullary-types">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Parallel list comprehensions</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>An extension to the list comprehension syntax to support
- <literal>zipWith</literal>-like functionality. See <xref
- linkend="parallel-list-comprehensions">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Foreign calling:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>Just what it sounds like. We provide
- <emphasis>lots</emphasis> of rope that you can dangle around
- your neck. Please see <xref LinkEnd="ffi">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Pragmas</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>Pragmas are special instructions to the compiler placed
- in the source file. The pragmas GHC supports are described in
- <xref LinkEnd="pragmas">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Rewrite rules:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>The programmer can specify rewrite rules as part of the
- source program (in a pragma). GHC applies these rewrite rules
- wherever it can. Details in <xref
- LinkEnd="rewrite-rules">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <varlistentry>
- <term>Generic classes:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para>(Note: support for generic classes is currently broken
- in GHC 5.02).</para>
-
- <para>Generic class declarations allow you to define a class
- whose methods say how to work over an arbitrary data type.
- Then it's really easy to make any new type into an instance of
- the class. This generalises the rather ad-hoc "deriving"
- feature of Haskell 98. Details in <xref
- LinkEnd="generic-classes">.</para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
- </variablelist>
-
-<para>
Before you get too carried away working at the lowest level (e.g.,
sloshing <literal>MutableByteArray#</literal>s around your
program), you may wish to check if there are libraries that provide a
-“Haskellised veneer” over the features you want. See
-<xref linkend="book-hslibs">.
+“Haskellised veneer” over the features you want. The
+separate libraries documentation describes all the libraries that come
+with GHC.
</para>
+<!-- LANGUAGE OPTIONS -->
<sect1 id="options-language">
<title>Language options</title>
</varlistentry>
<varlistentry>
+ <term><option>-ffi</option> and <option>-fffi</option>:</term>
+ <indexterm><primary><option>-ffi</option></primary></indexterm>
+ <indexterm><primary><option>-fffi</option></primary></indexterm>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>This option enables the language extension defined in the
+ Haskell 98 Foreign Function Interface Addendum plus deprecated
+ syntax of previous versions of the FFI for backwards
+ compatibility.</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </varlistentry>
+
+ <varlistentry>
+ <term><option>-fwith</option>:</term>
+ <indexterm><primary><option>-fwith</option></primary></indexterm>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>This option enables the deprecated <literal>with</literal>
+ keyword for implicit parameters; it is merely provided for backwards
+ compatibility.
+ It is independent of the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>
+ flag. </para>
+ </listitem>
+ </varlistentry>
+
+ <varlistentry>
<term><option>-fno-monomorphism-restriction</option>:</term>
<indexterm><primary><option>-fno-monomorphism-restriction</option></primary></indexterm>
<listitem>
module namespace is flat, and you must not conflict with
any Prelude module.)</para>
- <para>Even though you have not imported the Prelude, all
+ <para>Even though you have not imported the Prelude, most of
the built-in syntax still refers to the built-in Haskell
Prelude types and values, as specified by the Haskell
Report. For example, the type <literal>[Int]</literal>
translation for list comprehensions continues to use
<literal>Prelude.map</literal> etc.</para>
- <para> With one group of exceptions! You may want to
- define your own numeric class hierarchy. It completely
- defeats that purpose if the literal "1" means
- "<literal>Prelude.fromInteger 1</literal>", which is what
- the Haskell Report specifies. So the
- <option>-fno-implicit-prelude</option> flag causes the
- following pieces of built-in syntax to refer to <emphasis>whatever
- is in scope</emphasis>, not the Prelude versions:</para>
-
- <itemizedlist>
- <listitem>
- <para>Integer and fractional literals mean
- "<literal>fromInteger 1</literal>" and
- "<literal>fromRational 3.2</literal>", not the
- Prelude-qualified versions; both in expressions and in
- patterns.</para>
- </listitem>
-
- <listitem>
- <para>Negation (e.g. "<literal>- (f x)</literal>")
- means "<literal>negate (f x)</literal>" (not
- <literal>Prelude.negate</literal>).</para>
- </listitem>
-
- <listitem>
- <para>In an n+k pattern, the standard Prelude
- <literal>Ord</literal> class is still used for comparison,
- but the necessary subtraction uses whatever
- "<literal>(-)</literal>" is in scope (not
- "<literal>Prelude.(-)</literal>").</para>
- </listitem>
- </itemizedlist>
-
- <para>Note: Negative literals, such as <literal>-3</literal>, are
- specified by (a careful reading of) the Haskell Report as
- meaning <literal>Prelude.negate (Prelude.fromInteger 3)</literal>.
- However, GHC deviates from this slightly, and treats them as meaning
- <literal>fromInteger (-3)</literal>. One particular effect of this
- slightly-non-standard reading is that there is no difficulty with
- the literal <literal>-2147483648</literal> at type <literal>Int</literal>;
- it means <literal>fromInteger (-2147483648)</literal>. The strict interpretation
- would be <literal>negate (fromInteger 2147483648)</literal>,
- and the call to <literal>fromInteger</literal> would overflow
- (at type <literal>Int</literal>, remember).
- </para>
+ <para>However, <option>-fno-implicit-prelude</option> does
+ change the handling of certain built-in syntax: see
+ <xref LinkEnd="rebindable-syntax">.</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
</sect1>
<!-- UNBOXED TYPES AND PRIMITIVE OPERATIONS -->
-&primitives;
+<!-- included from primitives.sgml -->
+<!-- &primitives; -->
+<sect1 id="primitives">
+ <title>Unboxed types and primitive operations</title>
+
+<para>GHC is built on a raft of primitive data types and operations.
+While you really can use this stuff to write fast code,
+ we generally find it a lot less painful, and more satisfying in the
+ long run, to use higher-level language features and libraries. With
+ any luck, the code you write will be optimised to the efficient
+ unboxed version in any case. And if it isn't, we'd like to know
+ about it.</para>
+
+<para>We do not currently have good, up-to-date documentation about the
+primitives, perhaps because they are mainly intended for internal use.
+There used to be a long section about them here in the User Guide, but it
+became out of date, and wrong information is worse than none.</para>
+
+<para>The Real Truth about what primitive types there are, and what operations
+work over those types, is held in the file
+<filename>fptools/ghc/compiler/prelude/primops.txt</filename>.
+This file is used directly to generate GHC's primitive-operation definitions, so
+it is always correct! It is also intended for processing into text.</para>
+
+<para> Indeed,
+the result of such processing is part of the description of the
+ <ulink
+ url="http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/ghc/docs/papers/core.ps.gz">External
+ Core language</ulink>.
+So that document is a good place to look for a type-set version.
+We would be very happy if someone wanted to volunteer to produce an SGML
+back end to the program that processes <filename>primops.txt</filename> so that
+we could include the results here in the User Guide.</para>
+
+<para>What follows here is a brief summary of some main points.</para>
+
+<sect2 id="glasgow-unboxed">
+<title>Unboxed types
+</title>
+
+<para>
+<indexterm><primary>Unboxed types (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
+</para>
-<sect1 id="glasgow-ST-monad">
-<title>Primitive state-transformer monad</title>
+<para>Most types in GHC are <firstterm>boxed</firstterm>, which means
+that values of that type are represented by a pointer to a heap
+object. The representation of a Haskell <literal>Int</literal>, for
+example, is a two-word heap object. An <firstterm>unboxed</firstterm>
+type, however, is represented by the value itself, no pointers or heap
+allocation are involved.
+</para>
<para>
-<indexterm><primary>state transformers (Glasgow extensions)</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>ST monad (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
+Unboxed types correspond to the “raw machine” types you
+would use in C: <literal>Int#</literal> (long int),
+<literal>Double#</literal> (double), <literal>Addr#</literal>
+(void *), etc. The <emphasis>primitive operations</emphasis>
+(PrimOps) on these types are what you might expect; e.g.,
+<literal>(+#)</literal> is addition on
+<literal>Int#</literal>s, and is the machine-addition that we all
+know and love—usually one instruction.
</para>
<para>
-This monad underlies our implementation of arrays, mutable and
-immutable, and our implementation of I/O, including “C calls”.
+Primitive (unboxed) types cannot be defined in Haskell, and are
+therefore built into the language and compiler. Primitive types are
+always unlifted; that is, a value of a primitive type cannot be
+bottom. We use the convention that primitive types, values, and
+operations have a <literal>#</literal> suffix.
</para>
<para>
-The <literal>ST</literal> library, which provides access to the
-<function>ST</function> monad, is described in <xref
-linkend="sec-ST">.
+Primitive values are often represented by a simple bit-pattern, such
+as <literal>Int#</literal>, <literal>Float#</literal>,
+<literal>Double#</literal>. But this is not necessarily the case:
+a primitive value might be represented by a pointer to a
+heap-allocated object. Examples include
+<literal>Array#</literal>, the type of primitive arrays. A
+primitive array is heap-allocated because it is too big a value to fit
+in a register, and would be too expensive to copy around; in a sense,
+it is accidental that it is represented by a pointer. If a pointer
+represents a primitive value, then it really does point to that value:
+no unevaluated thunks, no indirections…nothing can be at the
+other end of the pointer than the primitive value.
</para>
-</sect1>
+<para>
+There are some restrictions on the use of primitive types, the main
+one being that you can't pass a primitive value to a polymorphic
+function or store one in a polymorphic data type. This rules out
+things like <literal>[Int#]</literal> (i.e. lists of primitive
+integers). The reason for this restriction is that polymorphic
+arguments and constructor fields are assumed to be pointers: if an
+unboxed integer is stored in one of these, the garbage collector would
+attempt to follow it, leading to unpredictable space leaks. Or a
+<function>seq</function> operation on the polymorphic component may
+attempt to dereference the pointer, with disastrous results. Even
+worse, the unboxed value might be larger than a pointer
+(<literal>Double#</literal> for instance).
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Nevertheless, A numerically-intensive program using unboxed types can
+go a <emphasis>lot</emphasis> faster than its “standard”
+counterpart—we saw a threefold speedup on one example.
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="glasgow-prim-arrays">
-<title>Primitive arrays, mutable and otherwise
+<sect2 id="unboxed-tuples">
+<title>Unboxed Tuples
</title>
<para>
-<indexterm><primary>primitive arrays (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>arrays, primitive (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
+Unboxed tuples aren't really exported by <literal>GHC.Exts</literal>,
+they're available by default with <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>. An
+unboxed tuple looks like this:
</para>
<para>
-GHC knows about quite a few flavours of Large Swathes of Bytes.
+
+<programlisting>
+(# e_1, ..., e_n #)
+</programlisting>
+
</para>
<para>
-First, GHC distinguishes between primitive arrays of (boxed) Haskell
-objects (type <literal>Array# obj</literal>) and primitive arrays of bytes (type
-<literal>ByteArray#</literal>).
+where <literal>e_1..e_n</literal> are expressions of any
+type (primitive or non-primitive). The type of an unboxed tuple looks
+the same.
</para>
<para>
-Second, it distinguishes between…
-<variablelist>
+Unboxed tuples are used for functions that need to return multiple
+values, but they avoid the heap allocation normally associated with
+using fully-fledged tuples. When an unboxed tuple is returned, the
+components are put directly into registers or on the stack; the
+unboxed tuple itself does not have a composite representation. Many
+of the primitive operations listed in this section return unboxed
+tuples.
+</para>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>Immutable:</term>
-<listitem>
<para>
-Arrays that do not change (as with “standard” Haskell arrays); you
-can only read from them. Obviously, they do not need the care and
-attention of the state-transformer monad.
+There are some pretty stringent restrictions on the use of unboxed tuples:
</para>
-</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>Mutable:</term>
+
+<para>
+
+<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
+
<para>
-Arrays that may be changed or “mutated.” All the operations on them
-live within the state-transformer monad and the updates happen
-<emphasis>in-place</emphasis>.
+ Unboxed tuple types are subject to the same restrictions as
+other unboxed types; i.e. they may not be stored in polymorphic data
+structures or passed to polymorphic functions.
+
</para>
</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>“Static” (in C land):</term>
<listitem>
+
<para>
-A C routine may pass an <literal>Addr#</literal> pointer back into Haskell land. There
-are then primitive operations with which you may merrily grab values
-over in C land, by indexing off the “static” pointer.
+ Unboxed tuples may only be constructed as the direct result of
+a function, and may only be deconstructed with a <literal>case</literal> expression.
+eg. the following are valid:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+f x y = (# x+1, y-1 #)
+g x = case f x x of { (# a, b #) -> a + b }
+</programlisting>
+
+
+but the following are invalid:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+f x y = g (# x, y #)
+g (# x, y #) = x + y
+</programlisting>
+
+
</para>
</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>“Stable” pointers:</term>
<listitem>
-<para>
-If, for some reason, you wish to hand a Haskell pointer (i.e.,
-<emphasis>not</emphasis> an unboxed value) to a C routine, you first make the
-pointer “stable,” so that the garbage collector won't forget that it
-exists. That is, GHC provides a safe way to pass Haskell pointers to
-C.
-</para>
<para>
-Please see <xref LinkEnd="sec-stable-pointers"> for more details.
+ No variable can have an unboxed tuple type. This is illegal:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+f :: (# Int, Int #) -> (# Int, Int #)
+f x = x
+</programlisting>
+
+
+because <literal>x</literal> has an unboxed tuple type.
+
</para>
</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>“Foreign objects”:</term>
-<listitem>
-<para>
-A “foreign object” is a safe way to pass an external object (a
-C-allocated pointer, say) to Haskell and have Haskell do the Right
-Thing when it no longer references the object. So, for example, C
-could pass a large bitmap over to Haskell and say “please free this
-memory when you're done with it.”
+
+</itemizedlist>
+
</para>
<para>
-Please see <xref LinkEnd="sec-ForeignObj"> for more details.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-</variablelist>
+Note: we may relax some of these restrictions in the future.
</para>
<para>
-The libraries documentatation gives more details on all these
-“primitive array” types and the operations on them.
+The <literal>IO</literal> and <literal>ST</literal> monads use unboxed
+tuples to avoid unnecessary allocation during sequences of operations.
</para>
+</sect2>
</sect1>
-<sect1 id="nullary-types">
-<title>Data types with no constructors</title>
+<!-- ====================== SYNTACTIC EXTENSIONS ======================= -->
+
+<sect1 id="syntax-extns">
+<title>Syntactic extensions</title>
+
+ <!-- ====================== HIERARCHICAL MODULES ======================= -->
+
+ <sect2 id="hierarchical-modules">
+ <title>Hierarchical Modules</title>
+
+ <para>GHC supports a small extension to the syntax of module
+ names: a module name is allowed to contain a dot
+ <literal>‘.’</literal>. This is also known as the
+ “hierarchical module namespace” extension, because
+ it extends the normally flat Haskell module namespace into a
+ more flexible hierarchy of modules.</para>
+
+ <para>This extension has very little impact on the language
+ itself; modules names are <emphasis>always</emphasis> fully
+ qualified, so you can just think of the fully qualified module
+ name as <quote>the module name</quote>. In particular, this
+ means that the full module name must be given after the
+ <literal>module</literal> keyword at the beginning of the
+ module; for example, the module <literal>A.B.C</literal> must
+ begin</para>
+
+<programlisting>module A.B.C</programlisting>
+
+
+ <para>It is a common strategy to use the <literal>as</literal>
+ keyword to save some typing when using qualified names with
+ hierarchical modules. For example:</para>
-<para>With the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> flag, GHC lets you declare
-a data type with no constructors. For example:</para>
<programlisting>
- data S -- S :: *
- data T a -- T :: * -> *
+import qualified Control.Monad.ST.Strict as ST
</programlisting>
-<para>Syntactically, the declaration lacks the "= constrs" part. The
-type can be parameterised, but only over ordinary types, of kind *; since
-Haskell does not have kind signatures, you cannot parameterise over higher-kinded
-types.</para>
-<para>Such data types have only one value, namely bottom.
-Nevertheless, they can be useful when defining "phantom types".</para>
-</sect1>
+ <para>Hierarchical modules have an impact on the way that GHC
+ searches for files. For a description, see <xref
+ linkend="finding-hierarchical-modules">.</para>
+
+ <para>GHC comes with a large collection of libraries arranged
+ hierarchically; see the accompanying library documentation.
+ There is an ongoing project to create and maintain a stable set
+ of <quote>core</quote> libraries used by several Haskell
+ compilers, and the libraries that GHC comes with represent the
+ current status of that project. For more details, see <ulink
+ url="http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/libraries/libraries.html">Haskell
+ Libraries</ulink>.</para>
+
+ </sect2>
+
+ <!-- ====================== PATTERN GUARDS ======================= -->
-<sect1 id="pattern-guards">
+<sect2 id="pattern-guards">
<title>Pattern guards</title>
<para>
Haskell's current guards therefore emerge as a special case, in which the
qualifier list has just one element, a boolean expression.
</para>
-</sect1>
+</sect2>
+
+ <!-- ===================== Recursive do-notation =================== -->
+
+<sect2 id="mdo-notation">
+<title>The recursive do-notation
+</title>
+
+<para> The recursive do-notation (also known as mdo-notation) is implemented as described in
+"A recursive do for Haskell",
+Levent Erkok, John Launchbury",
+Haskell Workshop 2002, pages: 29-37. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
+</para>
+<para>
+The do-notation of Haskell does not allow <emphasis>recursive bindings</emphasis>,
+that is, the variables bound in a do-expression are visible only in the textually following
+code block. Compare this to a let-expression, where bound variables are visible in the entire binding
+group. It turns out that several applications can benefit from recursive bindings in
+the do-notation, and this extension provides the necessary syntactic support.
+</para>
+<para>
+Here is a simple (yet contrived) example:
+</para>
+<programlisting>
+import Control.Monad.Fix
+
+justOnes = mdo xs <- Just (1:xs)
+ return xs
+</programlisting>
+<para>
+As you can guess <literal>justOnes</literal> will evaluate to <literal>Just [1,1,1,...</literal>.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The Control.Monad.Fix library introduces the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class. It's definition is:
+</para>
+<programlisting>
+class Monad m => MonadFix m where
+ mfix :: (a -> m a) -> m a
+</programlisting>
+<para>
+The function <literal>mfix</literal>
+dictates how the required recursion operation should be performed. If recursive bindings are required for a monad,
+then that monad must be declared an instance of the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class.
+For details, see the above mentioned reference.
+</para>
+<para>
+The following instances of <literal>MonadFix</literal> are automatically provided: List, Maybe, IO.
+Furthermore, the Control.Monad.ST and Control.Monad.ST.Lazy modules provide the instances of the MonadFix class
+for Haskell's internal state monad (strict and lazy, respectively).
+</para>
+<para>
+There are three important points in using the recursive-do notation:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>
+The recursive version of the do-notation uses the keyword <literal>mdo</literal> (rather
+than <literal>do</literal>).
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You should <literal>import Control.Monad.Fix</literal>.
+(Note: Strictly speaking, this import is required only when you need to refer to the name
+<literal>MonadFix</literal> in your program, but the import is always safe, and the programmers
+are encouraged to always import this module when using the mdo-notation.)
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+As with other extensions, ghc should be given the flag <literal>-fglasgow-exts</literal>
+</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The web page: <ulink url="http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/rmb">http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/rmb</ulink>
+contains up to date information on recursive monadic bindings.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Historical note: The old implementation of the mdo-notation (and most
+of the existing documents) used the name
+<literal>MonadRec</literal> for the class and the corresponding library.
+This name is not supported by GHC.
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+
+<sect2> <title> Infix type constructors </title>
+
+<para>GHC supports infix type constructors, much as it supports infix data constructors. For example:
+<programlisting>
+ infixl 5 :+:
- <sect1 id="parallel-list-comprehensions">
+ data a :+: b = Inl a | Inr b
+
+ f :: a `Either` b -> a :+: b
+ f (Left x) = Inl x
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>The lexical
+syntax of an infix type constructor is just like that of an infix data constructor: either
+it's an operator beginning with ":", or it is an ordinary (alphabetic) type constructor enclosed in
+back-quotes.</para>
+
+<para>
+When you give a fixity declaration, the fixity applies to both the data constructor and the
+type constructor with the specified name. You cannot give different fixities to the type constructor T
+and the data constructor T.
+</para>
+
+
+</sect2>
+
+ <!-- ===================== PARALLEL LIST COMPREHENSIONS =================== -->
+
+ <sect2 id="parallel-list-comprehensions">
<title>Parallel List Comprehensions</title>
<indexterm><primary>list comprehensions</primary><secondary>parallel</secondary>
</indexterm>
<para>where `zipN' is the appropriate zip for the given number of
branches.</para>
- </sect1>
-
-<sect1 id="multi-param-type-classes">
-<title>Multi-parameter type classes
-</title>
+ </sect2>
-<para>
-This section documents GHC's implementation of multi-parameter type
-classes. There's lots of background in the paper <ULink
-URL="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/multi.ps.gz" >Type
-classes: exploring the design space</ULink > (Simon Peyton Jones, Mark
-Jones, Erik Meijer).
-</para>
+<sect2 id="rebindable-syntax">
+<title>Rebindable syntax</title>
-<para>
-I'd like to thank people who reported shorcomings in the GHC 3.02
-implementation. Our default decisions were all conservative ones, and
-the experience of these heroic pioneers has given useful concrete
-examples to support several generalisations. (These appear below as
-design choices not implemented in 3.02.)
-</para>
-<para>
-I've discussed these notes with Mark Jones, and I believe that Hugs
-will migrate towards the same design choices as I outline here.
-Thanks to him, and to many others who have offered very useful
-feedback.
-</para>
+ <para>GHC allows most kinds of built-in syntax to be rebound by
+ the user, to facilitate replacing the <literal>Prelude</literal>
+ with a home-grown version, for example.</para>
-<sect2>
-<title>Types</title>
+ <para>You may want to define your own numeric class
+ hierarchy. It completely defeats that purpose if the
+ literal "1" means "<literal>Prelude.fromInteger
+ 1</literal>", which is what the Haskell Report specifies.
+ So the <option>-fno-implicit-prelude</option> flag causes
+ the following pieces of built-in syntax to refer to
+ <emphasis>whatever is in scope</emphasis>, not the Prelude
+ versions:</para>
-<para>
-There are the following restrictions on the form of a qualified
-type:
-</para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Integer and fractional literals mean
+ "<literal>fromInteger 1</literal>" and
+ "<literal>fromRational 3.2</literal>", not the
+ Prelude-qualified versions; both in expressions and in
+ patterns. </para>
+ <para>However, the standard Prelude <literal>Eq</literal> class
+ is still used for the equality test necessary for literal patterns.</para>
+ </listitem>
-<para>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Negation (e.g. "<literal>- (f x)</literal>")
+ means "<literal>negate (f x)</literal>" (not
+ <literal>Prelude.negate</literal>).</para>
+ </listitem>
-<programlisting>
- forall tv1..tvn (c1, ...,cn) => type
-</programlisting>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>In an n+k pattern, the standard Prelude
+ <literal>Ord</literal> class is still used for comparison,
+ but the necessary subtraction uses whatever
+ "<literal>(-)</literal>" is in scope (not
+ "<literal>Prelude.(-)</literal>").</para>
+ </listitem>
-</para>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>"Do" notation is translated using whatever
+ functions <literal>(>>=)</literal>,
+ <literal>(>>)</literal>, <literal>fail</literal>, and
+ <literal>return</literal>, are in scope (not the Prelude
+ versions). List comprehensions, and parallel array
+ comprehensions, are unaffected. </para></listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
-<para>
-(Here, I write the "foralls" explicitly, although the Haskell source
-language omits them; in Haskell 1.4, all the free type variables of an
-explicit source-language type signature are universally quantified,
-except for the class type variables in a class declaration. However,
-in GHC, you can give the foralls if you want. See <xref LinkEnd="universal-quantification">).
-</para>
+ <para>Be warned: this is an experimental facility, with fewer checks than
+ usual. In particular, it is essential that the functions GHC finds in scope
+ must have the appropriate types, namely:
+ <screen>
+ fromInteger :: forall a. (...) => Integer -> a
+ fromRational :: forall a. (...) => Rational -> a
+ negate :: forall a. (...) => a -> a
+ (-) :: forall a. (...) => a -> a -> a
+ (>>=) :: forall m a. (...) => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
+ (>>) :: forall m a. (...) => m a -> m b -> m b
+ return :: forall m a. (...) => a -> m a
+ fail :: forall m a. (...) => String -> m a
+ </screen>
+ (The (...) part can be any context including the empty context; that part
+ is up to you.)
+ If the functions don't have the right type, very peculiar things may
+ happen. Use <literal>-dcore-lint</literal> to
+ typecheck the desugared program. If Core Lint is happy you should be all right.</para>
-<para>
+</sect2>
+</sect1>
-<OrderedList>
-<listitem>
-<para>
- <emphasis>Each universally quantified type variable
-<literal>tvi</literal> must be mentioned (i.e. appear free) in <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
+<!-- TYPE SYSTEM EXTENSIONS -->
+<sect1 id="type-extensions">
+<title>Type system extensions</title>
-The reason for this is that a value with a type that does not obey
-this restriction could not be used without introducing
-ambiguity. Here, for example, is an illegal type:
+<sect2 id="nullary-types">
+<title>Data types with no constructors</title>
+<para>With the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> flag, GHC lets you declare
+a data type with no constructors. For example:</para>
<programlisting>
- forall a. Eq a => Int
+ data S -- S :: *
+ data T a -- T :: * -> *
</programlisting>
+<para>Syntactically, the declaration lacks the "= constrs" part. The
+type can be parameterised over types of any kind, but if the kind is
+not <literal>*</literal> then an explicit kind annotation must be used
+(see <xref linkend="sec-kinding">).</para>
-When a value with this type was used, the constraint <literal>Eq tv</literal>
-would be introduced where <literal>tv</literal> is a fresh type variable, and
-(in the dictionary-translation implementation) the value would be
+<para>Such data types have only one value, namely bottom.
+Nevertheless, they can be useful when defining "phantom types".</para>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="infix-tycons">
+<title>Infix type constructors</title>
+
+<para>
+GHC allows type constructors to be operators, and to be written infix, very much
+like expressions. More specifically:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>
+ A type constructor can be an operator, beginning with a colon; e.g. <literal>:*:</literal>.
+ The lexical syntax is the same as that for data constructors.
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ Types can be written infix. For example <literal>Int :*: Bool</literal>.
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ Back-quotes work
+ as for expressions, both for type constructors and type variables; e.g. <literal>Int `Either` Bool</literal>, or
+ <literal>Int `a` Bool</literal>. Similarly, parentheses work the same; e.g. <literal>(:*:) Int Bool</literal>.
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ Fixities may be declared for type constructors just as for data constructors. However,
+ one cannot distinguish between the two in a fixity declaration; a fixity declaration
+ sets the fixity for a data constructor and the corresponding type constructor. For example:
+<screen>
+ infixl 7 T, :*:
+</screen>
+ sets the fixity for both type constructor <literal>T</literal> and data constructor <literal>T</literal>,
+ and similarly for <literal>:*:</literal>.
+ <literal>Int `a` Bool</literal>.
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ Function arrow is <literal>infixr</literal> with fixity 0. (This might change; I'm not sure what it should be.)
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ Data type and type-synonym declarations can be written infix. E.g.
+<screen>
+ data a :*: b = Foo a b
+ type a :+: b = Either a b
+</screen>
+ </para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+ The only thing that differs between operators in types and operators in expressions is that
+ ordinary non-constructor operators, such as <literal>+</literal> and <literal>*</literal>
+ are not allowed in types. Reason: the uniform thing to do would be to make them type
+ variables, but that's not very useful. A less uniform but more useful thing would be to
+ allow them to be type <emphasis>constructors</emphasis>. But that gives trouble in export
+ lists. So for now we just exclude them.
+ </para></listitem>
+
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="sec-kinding">
+<title>Explicitly-kinded quantification</title>
+
+<para>
+Haskell infers the kind of each type variable. Sometimes it is nice to be able
+to give the kind explicitly as (machine-checked) documentation,
+just as it is nice to give a type signature for a function. On some occasions,
+it is essential to do so. For example, in his paper "Restricted Data Types in Haskell" (Haskell Workshop 1999)
+John Hughes had to define the data type:
+<Screen>
+ data Set cxt a = Set [a]
+ | Unused (cxt a -> ())
+</Screen>
+The only use for the <literal>Unused</literal> constructor was to force the correct
+kind for the type variable <literal>cxt</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+GHC now instead allows you to specify the kind of a type variable directly, wherever
+a type variable is explicitly bound. Namely:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para><literal>data</literal> declarations:
+<Screen>
+ data Set (cxt :: * -> *) a = Set [a]
+</Screen></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para><literal>type</literal> declarations:
+<Screen>
+ type T (f :: * -> *) = f Int
+</Screen></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para><literal>class</literal> declarations:
+<Screen>
+ class (Eq a) => C (f :: * -> *) a where ...
+</Screen></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para><literal>forall</literal>'s in type signatures:
+<Screen>
+ f :: forall (cxt :: * -> *). Set cxt Int
+</Screen></para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The parentheses are required. Some of the spaces are required too, to
+separate the lexemes. If you write <literal>(f::*->*)</literal> you
+will get a parse error, because "<literal>::*->*</literal>" is a
+single lexeme in Haskell.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+As part of the same extension, you can put kind annotations in types
+as well. Thus:
+<Screen>
+ f :: (Int :: *) -> Int
+ g :: forall a. a -> (a :: *)
+</Screen>
+The syntax is
+<Screen>
+ atype ::= '(' ctype '::' kind ')
+</Screen>
+The parentheses are required.
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
+
+<sect2 id="class-method-types">
+<title>Class method types
+</title>
+<para>
+Haskell 98 prohibits class method types to mention constraints on the
+class type variable, thus:
+<programlisting>
+ class Seq s a where
+ fromList :: [a] -> s a
+ elem :: Eq a => a -> s a -> Bool
+</programlisting>
+The type of <literal>elem</literal> is illegal in Haskell 98, because it
+contains the constraint <literal>Eq a</literal>, constrains only the
+class type variable (in this case <literal>a</literal>).
+</para>
+<para>
+With the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> GHC lifts this restriction.
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="multi-param-type-classes">
+<title>Multi-parameter type classes
+</title>
+
+<para>
+This section documents GHC's implementation of multi-parameter type
+classes. There's lots of background in the paper <ULink
+URL="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/multi.ps.gz" >Type
+classes: exploring the design space</ULink > (Simon Peyton Jones, Mark
+Jones, Erik Meijer).
+</para>
+
+<para>
+I'd like to thank people who reported shorcomings in the GHC 3.02
+implementation. Our default decisions were all conservative ones, and
+the experience of these heroic pioneers has given useful concrete
+examples to support several generalisations. (These appear below as
+design choices not implemented in 3.02.)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+I've discussed these notes with Mark Jones, and I believe that Hugs
+will migrate towards the same design choices as I outline here.
+Thanks to him, and to many others who have offered very useful
+feedback.
+</para>
+
+<sect3>
+<title>Types</title>
+
+<para>
+There are the following restrictions on the form of a qualified
+type:
+</para>
+
+<para>
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall tv1..tvn (c1, ...,cn) => type
+</programlisting>
+
+</para>
+
+<para>
+(Here, I write the "foralls" explicitly, although the Haskell source
+language omits them; in Haskell 1.4, all the free type variables of an
+explicit source-language type signature are universally quantified,
+except for the class type variables in a class declaration. However,
+in GHC, you can give the foralls if you want. See <xref LinkEnd="universal-quantification">).
+</para>
+
+<para>
+
+<OrderedList>
+<listitem>
+
+<para>
+ <emphasis>Each universally quantified type variable
+<literal>tvi</literal> must be mentioned (i.e. appear free) in <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
+
+The reason for this is that a value with a type that does not obey
+this restriction could not be used without introducing
+ambiguity. Here, for example, is an illegal type:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall a. Eq a => Int
+</programlisting>
+
+
+When a value with this type was used, the constraint <literal>Eq tv</literal>
+would be introduced where <literal>tv</literal> is a fresh type variable, and
+(in the dictionary-translation implementation) the value would be
applied to a dictionary for <literal>Eq tv</literal>. The difficulty is that we
can never know which instance of <literal>Eq</literal> to use because we never
get any more information about <literal>tv</literal>.
This choice recovers principal types, a property that Haskell 1.4 does not have.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Class declarations</title>
<para>
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2 id="instance-decls">
+<sect3 id="instance-decls">
<title>Instance declarations</title>
<para>
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-</sect1>
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="implicit-parameters">
+<sect2 id="implicit-parameters">
<title>Implicit parameters
</title>
27th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'00),
Boston, Jan 2000.
</para>
+<para>(Most of the following, stil rather incomplete, documentation is due to Jeff Lewis.)</para>
+<para>
+A variable is called <emphasis>dynamically bound</emphasis> when it is bound by the calling
+context of a function and <emphasis>statically bound</emphasis> when bound by the callee's
+context. In Haskell, all variables are statically bound. Dynamic
+binding of variables is a notion that goes back to Lisp, but was later
+discarded in more modern incarnations, such as Scheme. Dynamic binding
+can be very confusing in an untyped language, and unfortunately, typed
+languages, in particular Hindley-Milner typed languages like Haskell,
+only support static scoping of variables.
+</para>
+<para>
+However, by a simple extension to the type class system of Haskell, we
+can support dynamic binding. Basically, we express the use of a
+dynamically bound variable as a constraint on the type. These
+constraints lead to types of the form <literal>(?x::t') => t</literal>, which says "this
+function uses a dynamically-bound variable <literal>?x</literal>
+of type <literal>t'</literal>". For
+example, the following expresses the type of a sort function,
+implicitly parameterized by a comparison function named <literal>cmp</literal>.
+<programlisting>
+ sort :: (?cmp :: a -> a -> Bool) => [a] -> [a]
+</programlisting>
+The dynamic binding constraints are just a new form of predicate in the type class system.
+</para>
+<para>
+An implicit parameter occurs in an exprssion using the special form <literal>?x</literal>,
+where <literal>x</literal> is
+any valid identifier (e.g. <literal>ord ?x</literal> is a valid expression).
+Use of this construct also introduces a new
+dynamic-binding constraint in the type of the expression.
+For example, the following definition
+shows how we can define an implicitly parameterized sort function in
+terms of an explicitly parameterized <literal>sortBy</literal> function:
+<programlisting>
+ sortBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
+
+ sort :: (?cmp :: a -> a -> Bool) => [a] -> [a]
+ sort = sortBy ?cmp
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<sect3>
+<title>Implicit-parameter type constraints</title>
<para>
-There should be more documentation, but there isn't (yet). Yell if you need it.
+Dynamic binding constraints behave just like other type class
+constraints in that they are automatically propagated. Thus, when a
+function is used, its implicit parameters are inherited by the
+function that called it. For example, our <literal>sort</literal> function might be used
+to pick out the least value in a list:
+<programlisting>
+ least :: (?cmp :: a -> a -> Bool) => [a] -> a
+ least xs = fst (sort xs)
+</programlisting>
+Without lifting a finger, the <literal>?cmp</literal> parameter is
+propagated to become a parameter of <literal>least</literal> as well. With explicit
+parameters, the default is that parameters must always be explicit
+propagated. With implicit parameters, the default is to always
+propagate them.
</para>
-<itemizedlist>
-<listitem>
+<para>
+An implicit-parameter type constraint differs from other type class constraints in the
+following way: All uses of a particular implicit parameter must have
+the same type. This means that the type of <literal>(?x, ?x)</literal>
+is <literal>(?x::a) => (a,a)</literal>, and not
+<literal>(?x::a, ?x::b) => (a, b)</literal>, as would be the case for type
+class constraints.
+</para>
+
<para> You can't have an implicit parameter in the context of a class or instance
declaration. For example, both these declarations are illegal:
<programlisting>
you invoke a function. But the ``invocation'' of instance declarations is done
behind the scenes by the compiler, so it's hard to figure out exactly where it is done.
Easiest thing is to outlaw the offending types.</para>
-</listitem>
+</sect3>
+
+<sect3>
+<title>Implicit-parameter bindings</title>
+
+<para>
+An implicit parameter is <emphasis>bound</emphasis> using the standard
+<literal>let</literal> or <literal>where</literal> binding forms.
+For example, we define the <literal>min</literal> function by binding
+<literal>cmp</literal>.
+<programlisting>
+ min :: [a] -> a
+ min = let ?cmp = (<=) in least
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+A group of implicit-parameter bindings may occur anywhere a normal group of Haskell
+bindings can occur, except at top level. That is, they can occur in a <literal>let</literal>
+(including in a list comprehension, or do-notation, or pattern guards),
+or a <literal>where</literal> clause.
+Note the following points:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>
+An implicit-parameter binding group must be a
+collection of simple bindings to implicit-style variables (no
+function-style bindings, and no type signatures); these bindings are
+neither polymorphic or recursive.
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+You may not mix implicit-parameter bindings with ordinary bindings in a
+single <literal>let</literal>
+expression; use two nested <literal>let</literal>s instead.
+(In the case of <literal>where</literal> you are stuck, since you can't nest <literal>where</literal> clauses.)
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+You may put multiple implicit-parameter bindings in a
+single binding group; but they are <emphasis>not</emphasis> treated
+as a mutually recursive group (as ordinary <literal>let</literal> bindings are).
+Instead they are treated as a non-recursive group, simultaneously binding all the implicit
+parameter. The bindings are not nested, and may be re-ordered without changing
+the meaning of the program.
+For example, consider:
+<programlisting>
+ f t = let { ?x = t; ?y = ?x+(1::Int) } in ?x + ?y
+</programlisting>
+The use of <literal>?x</literal> in the binding for <literal>?y</literal> does not "see"
+the binding for <literal>?x</literal>, so the type of <literal>f</literal> is
+<programlisting>
+ f :: (?x::Int) => Int -> Int
+</programlisting>
+</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
+</para>
-</sect1>
+</sect3>
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="linear-implicit-parameters">
+<sect2 id="linear-implicit-parameters">
<title>Linear implicit parameters
</title>
<para>
<para>
For example:
<programlisting>
+ import GHC.Exts( Splittable )
+
data NameSupply = ...
splitNS :: NameSupply -> (NameSupply, NameSupply)
newName :: NameSupply -> Name
- instance PrelSplit.Splittable NameSupply where
+ instance Splittable NameSupply where
split = splitNS
Notice the call to 'split' introduced by the type checker.
How did it know to use 'splitNS'? Because what it really did
was to introduce a call to the overloaded function 'split',
-defined by
+defined by the class <literal>Splittable</literal>:
<programlisting>
class Splittable a where
split :: a -> (a,a)
<programlisting>
g :: (Splittable a, %ns :: a) => b -> (b,a,a)
</programlisting>
-The <literal>Splittable</literal> class is built into GHC. It's defined in <literal>PrelSplit</literal>,
-and exported by <literal>GlaExts</literal>.
+The <literal>Splittable</literal> class is built into GHC. It's exported by module
+<literal>GHC.Exts</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Other points:
</itemizedlist>
</para>
-<sect2><title>Warnings</title>
+<sect3><title>Warnings</title>
<para>
The monomorphism restriction is even more important than usual.
Haskell programs without knowing their typing.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-</sect1>
+<sect3><title>Recursive functions</title>
+<para>Linear implicit parameters can be particularly tricky when you have a recursive function
+Consider
+<programlisting>
+ foo :: %x::T => Int -> [Int]
+ foo 0 = []
+ foo n = %x : foo (n-1)
+</programlisting>
+where T is some type in class Splittable.</para>
+<para>
+Do you get a list of all the same T's or all different T's
+(assuming that split gives two distinct T's back)?
+</para><para>
+If you supply the type signature, taking advantage of polymorphic
+recursion, you get what you'd probably expect. Here's the
+translated term, where the implicit param is made explicit:
+<programlisting>
+ foo x 0 = []
+ foo x n = let (x1,x2) = split x
+ in x1 : foo x2 (n-1)
+</programlisting>
+But if you don't supply a type signature, GHC uses the Hindley
+Milner trick of using a single monomorphic instance of the function
+for the recursive calls. That is what makes Hindley Milner type inference
+work. So the translation becomes
+<programlisting>
+ foo x = let
+ foom 0 = []
+ foom n = x : foom (n-1)
+ in
+ foom
+</programlisting>
+Result: 'x' is not split, and you get a list of identical T's. So the
+semantics of the program depends on whether or not foo has a type signature.
+Yikes!
+</para><para>
+You may say that this is a good reason to dislike linear implicit parameters
+and you'd be right. That is why they are an experimental feature.
+</para>
+</sect3>
-<sect1 id="functional-dependencies">
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="functional-dependencies">
<title>Functional dependencies
</title>
<para> Functional dependencies are implemented as described by Mark Jones
-in "Type Classes with Functional Dependencies", Mark P. Jones,
+in “<ulink url="http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mpj/pubs/fundeps.html">Type Classes with Functional Dependencies</ulink>”, Mark P. Jones,
In Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Programming,
-ESOP 2000, Berlin, Germany, March 2000, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1782.
+ESOP 2000, Berlin, Germany, March 2000, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1782,
+.
</para>
<para>
There should be more documentation, but there isn't (yet). Yell if you need it.
</para>
-</sect1>
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="universal-quantification">
-<title>Explicit universal quantification
+<sect2 id="universal-quantification">
+<title>Arbitrary-rank polymorphism
</title>
<para>
</para>
-<sect2 id="univ">
+<sect3 id="univ">
<title>Examples
</title>
from the <literal>MonadT</literal> data structure, rather than using pattern
matching.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Type inference</title>
<para>
it needs to know.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2 id="hoist">
-<title>Type synonyms and hoisting
+<sect3 id="implicit-quant">
+<title>Implicit quantification</title>
+
+<para>
+GHC performs implicit quantification as follows. <emphasis>At the top level (only) of
+user-written types, if and only if there is no explicit <literal>forall</literal>,
+GHC finds all the type variables mentioned in the type that are not already
+in scope, and universally quantifies them.</emphasis> For example, the following pairs are
+equivalent:
+<programlisting>
+ f :: a -> a
+ f :: forall a. a -> a
+
+ g (x::a) = let
+ h :: a -> b -> b
+ h x y = y
+ in ...
+ g (x::a) = let
+ h :: forall b. a -> b -> b
+ h x y = y
+ in ...
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+Notice that GHC does <emphasis>not</emphasis> find the innermost possible quantification
+point. For example:
+<programlisting>
+ f :: (a -> a) -> Int
+ -- MEANS
+ f :: forall a. (a -> a) -> Int
+ -- NOT
+ f :: (forall a. a -> a) -> Int
+
+
+ g :: (Ord a => a -> a) -> Int
+ -- MEANS the illegal type
+ g :: forall a. (Ord a => a -> a) -> Int
+ -- NOT
+ g :: (forall a. Ord a => a -> a) -> Int
+</programlisting>
+The latter produces an illegal type, which you might think is silly,
+but at least the rule is simple. If you want the latter type, you
+can write your for-alls explicitly. Indeed, doing so is strongly advised
+for rank-2 types.
+</para>
+</sect3>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="type-synonyms">
+<title>Liberalised type synonyms
</title>
<para>
-GHC also allows you to write a <literal>forall</literal> in a type synonym, thus:
+Type synonmys are like macros at the type level, and
+GHC does validity checking on types <emphasis>only after expanding type synonyms</emphasis>.
+That means that GHC can be very much more liberal about type synonyms than Haskell 98:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem> <para>You can write a <literal>forall</literal> (including overloading)
+in a type synonym, thus:
<programlisting>
- type Discard a = forall b. a -> b -> a
+ type Discard a = forall b. Show b => a -> b -> (a, String)
f :: Discard a
- f x y = x
+ f x y = (x, show y)
+
+ g :: Discard Int -> (Int,Bool) -- A rank-2 type
+ g f = f Int True
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You can write an unboxed tuple in a type synonym:
+<programlisting>
+ type Pr = (# Int, Int #)
+
+ h :: Int -> Pr
+ h x = (# x, x #)
+</programlisting>
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You can apply a type synonym to a forall type:
+<programlisting>
+ type Foo a = a -> a -> Bool
+
+ f :: Foo (forall b. b->b)
+</programlisting>
+After expanding the synonym, <literal>f</literal> has the legal (in GHC) type:
+<programlisting>
+ f :: (forall b. b->b) -> (forall b. b->b) -> Bool
+</programlisting>
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You can apply a type synonym to a partially applied type synonym:
+<programlisting>
+ type Generic i o = forall x. i x -> o x
+ type Id x = x
+
+ foo :: Generic Id []
+</programlisting>
+After epxanding the synonym, <literal>foo</literal> has the legal (in GHC) type:
+<programlisting>
+ foo :: forall x. x -> [x]
+</programlisting>
+</para></listitem>
+
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+
+<para>
+GHC currently does kind checking before expanding synonyms (though even that
+could be changed.)
+</para>
+<para>
+After expanding type synonyms, GHC does validity checking on types, looking for
+the following mal-formedness which isn't detected simply by kind checking:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>
+Type constructor applied to a type involving for-alls.
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+Unboxed tuple on left of an arrow.
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>
+Partially-applied type synonym.
+</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+So, for example,
+this will be rejected:
+<programlisting>
+ type Pr = (# Int, Int #)
+
+ h :: Pr -> Int
+ h x = ...
</programlisting>
-However, it is often convenient to use these sort of synonyms at the right hand
+because GHC does not allow unboxed tuples on the left of a function arrow.
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="hoist">
+<title>For-all hoisting</title>
+<para>
+It is often convenient to use generalised type synonyms at the right hand
end of an arrow, thus:
<programlisting>
type Discard a = forall b. a -> b -> a
user-written type (e.g. in a type signature), GHC expands type synonyms and then repeatedly
performs the transformation:</emphasis>
<programlisting>
- <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> forall a. <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
+ <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
==>
- forall a. <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
+ forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
</programlisting>
(In fact, GHC tries to retain as much synonym information as possible for use in
error messages, but that is a usability issue.) This rule applies, of course, whether
g :: Int -> Int -> forall b. b -> Int
</programlisting>
</para>
+<para>
+When doing this hoisting operation, GHC eliminates duplicate constraints. For
+example:
+<programlisting>
+ type Foo a = (?x::Int) => Bool -> a
+ g :: Foo (Foo Int)
+</programlisting>
+means
+<programlisting>
+ g :: (?x::Int) => Bool -> Bool -> Int
+</programlisting>
+</para>
</sect2>
-</sect1>
-<sect1 id="existential-quantification">
+<sect2 id="existential-quantification">
<title>Existentially quantified data constructors
</title>
quite a bit of object-oriented-like programming this way.
</para>
-<sect2 id="existential">
+<sect3 id="existential">
<title>Why existential?
</title>
adding a new existential quantification construct.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Type classes</title>
<para>
universal quantification earlier.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Restrictions</title>
<para>
f3 x = a==b where { Baz1 a b = x }
</programlisting>
+Instead, use a <literal>case</literal> expression:
+
+<programlisting>
+ f3 x = case x of Baz1 a b -> a==b
+</programlisting>
-You can only pattern-match
+In general, you can only pattern-match
on an existentially-quantified constructor in a <literal>case</literal> expression or
in the patterns of a function definition.
</para>
+</sect3>
+
</sect2>
-</sect1>
-
-<sect1 id="sec-assertions">
-<title>Assertions
-<indexterm><primary>Assertions</primary></indexterm>
-</title>
-
-<para>
-If you want to make use of assertions in your standard Haskell code, you
-could define a function like the following:
-</para>
-
-<para>
-
-<programlisting>
-assert :: Bool -> a -> a
-assert False x = error "assertion failed!"
-assert _ x = x
-</programlisting>
-
-</para>
-
-<para>
-which works, but gives you back a less than useful error message --
-an assertion failed, but which and where?
-</para>
-
-<para>
-One way out is to define an extended <function>assert</function> function which also
-takes a descriptive string to include in the error message and
-perhaps combine this with the use of a pre-processor which inserts
-the source location where <function>assert</function> was used.
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Ghc offers a helping hand here, doing all of this for you. For every
-use of <function>assert</function> in the user's source:
-</para>
-
-<para>
-
-<programlisting>
-kelvinToC :: Double -> Double
-kelvinToC k = assert (k >= 0.0) (k+273.15)
-</programlisting>
-
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Ghc will rewrite this to also include the source location where the
-assertion was made,
-</para>
-
-<para>
-
-<programlisting>
-assert pred val ==> assertError "Main.hs|15" pred val
-</programlisting>
-
-</para>
-
-<para>
-The rewrite is only performed by the compiler when it spots
-applications of <function>Exception.assert</function>, so you can still define and
-use your own versions of <function>assert</function>, should you so wish. If not,
-import <literal>Exception</literal> to make use <function>assert</function> in your code.
-</para>
-
-<para>
-To have the compiler ignore uses of assert, use the compiler option
-<option>-fignore-asserts</option>. <indexterm><primary>-fignore-asserts option</primary></indexterm> That is,
-expressions of the form <literal>assert pred e</literal> will be rewritten to <literal>e</literal>.
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Assertion failures can be caught, see the documentation for the
-<literal>Exception</literal> library (<xref linkend="sec-Exception">)
-for the details.
-</para>
-
-</sect1>
-
-<sect1 id="scoped-type-variables">
-<title>Scoped Type Variables
-</title>
+<sect2 id="scoped-type-variables">
+<title>Scoped type variables
+</title>
<para>
A <emphasis>pattern type signature</emphasis> can introduce a <emphasis>scoped type
So much for the basic idea. Here are the details.
</para>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>What a pattern type signature means</title>
<para>
A type variable brought into scope by a pattern type signature is simply
w (x::a) = x -- a unifies with [b]
</programlisting>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Scope and implicit quantification</title>
<para>
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Result type signatures</title>
<para>
Result type signatures are not yet implemented in Hugs.
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Where a pattern type signature can occur</title>
<para>
</programlisting>
</para>
-</listitem>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+To avoid ambiguity, the type after the “<literal>::</literal>” in a result
+pattern signature on a lambda or <literal>case</literal> must be atomic (i.e. a single
+token or a parenthesised type of some sort). To see why,
+consider how one would parse this:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ \ x :: a -> b -> x
+</programlisting>
+
+
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+
+<para>
+ Pattern type signatures can bind existential type variables.
+For example:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ data T = forall a. MkT [a]
+
+ f :: T -> T
+ f (MkT [t::a]) = MkT t3
+ where
+ t3::[a] = [t,t,t]
+</programlisting>
+
+
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+
+<listitem>
+
+<para>
+Pattern type signatures
+can be used in pattern bindings:
+
+<programlisting>
+ f x = let (y, z::a) = x in ...
+ f1 x = let (y, z::Int) = x in ...
+ f2 (x::(Int,a)) = let (y, z::a) = x in ...
+ f3 :: (b->b) = \x -> x
+</programlisting>
+
+In all such cases, the binding is not generalised over the pattern-bound
+type variables. Thus <literal>f3</literal> is monomorphic; <literal>f3</literal>
+has type <literal>b -> b</literal> for some type <literal>b</literal>,
+and <emphasis>not</emphasis> <literal>forall b. b -> b</literal>.
+In contrast, the binding
+<programlisting>
+ f4 :: b->b
+ f4 = \x -> x
+</programlisting>
+makes a polymorphic function, but <literal>b</literal> is not in scope anywhere
+in <literal>f4</literal>'s scope.
+
+</para>
+</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+
+</sect3>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2 id="newtype-deriving">
+<title>Generalised derived instances for newtypes</title>
+
+<para>
+When you define an abstract type using <literal>newtype</literal>, you may want
+the new type to inherit some instances from its representation. In
+Haskell 98, you can inherit instances of <literal>Eq</literal>, <literal>Ord</literal>,
+<literal>Enum</literal> and <literal>Bounded</literal> by deriving them, but for any
+other classes you have to write an explicit instance declaration. For
+example, if you define
+
+<programlisting>
+ newtype Dollars = Dollars Int
+</programlisting>
+
+and you want to use arithmetic on <literal>Dollars</literal>, you have to
+explicitly define an instance of <literal>Num</literal>:
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance Num Dollars where
+ Dollars a + Dollars b = Dollars (a+b)
+ ...
+</programlisting>
+All the instance does is apply and remove the <literal>newtype</literal>
+constructor. It is particularly galling that, since the constructor
+doesn't appear at run-time, this instance declaration defines a
+dictionary which is <emphasis>wholly equivalent</emphasis> to the <literal>Int</literal>
+dictionary, only slower!
+</para>
+
+
+<sect3> <title> Generalising the deriving clause </title>
+<para>
+GHC now permits such instances to be derived instead, so one can write
+<programlisting>
+ newtype Dollars = Dollars Int deriving (Eq,Show,Num)
+</programlisting>
+
+and the implementation uses the <emphasis>same</emphasis> <literal>Num</literal> dictionary
+for <literal>Dollars</literal> as for <literal>Int</literal>. Notionally, the compiler
+derives an instance declaration of the form
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance Num Int => Num Dollars
+</programlisting>
+
+which just adds or removes the <literal>newtype</literal> constructor according to the type.
+</para>
+<para>
+
+We can also derive instances of constructor classes in a similar
+way. For example, suppose we have implemented state and failure monad
+transformers, such that
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance Monad m => Monad (State s m)
+ instance Monad m => Monad (Failure m)
+</programlisting>
+In Haskell 98, we can define a parsing monad by
+<programlisting>
+ type Parser tok m a = State [tok] (Failure m) a
+</programlisting>
+
+which is automatically a monad thanks to the instance declarations
+above. With the extension, we can make the parser type abstract,
+without needing to write an instance of class <literal>Monad</literal>, via
+
+<programlisting>
+ newtype Parser tok m a = Parser (State [tok] (Failure m) a)
+ deriving Monad
+</programlisting>
+In this case the derived instance declaration is of the form
+<programlisting>
+ instance Monad (State [tok] (Failure m)) => Monad (Parser tok m)
+</programlisting>
+
+Notice that, since <literal>Monad</literal> is a constructor class, the
+instance is a <emphasis>partial application</emphasis> of the new type, not the
+entire left hand side. We can imagine that the type declaration is
+``eta-converted'' to generate the context of the instance
+declaration.
+</para>
+<para>
+
+We can even derive instances of multi-parameter classes, provided the
+newtype is the last class parameter. In this case, a ``partial
+application'' of the class appears in the <literal>deriving</literal>
+clause. For example, given the class
+
+<programlisting>
+ class StateMonad s m | m -> s where ...
+ instance Monad m => StateMonad s (State s m) where ...
+</programlisting>
+then we can derive an instance of <literal>StateMonad</literal> for <literal>Parser</literal>s by
+<programlisting>
+ newtype Parser tok m a = Parser (State [tok] (Failure m) a)
+ deriving (Monad, StateMonad [tok])
+</programlisting>
+
+The derived instance is obtained by completing the application of the
+class to the new type:
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance StateMonad [tok] (State [tok] (Failure m)) =>
+ StateMonad [tok] (Parser tok m)
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+
+As a result of this extension, all derived instances in newtype
+declarations are treated uniformly (and implemented just by reusing
+the dictionary for the representation type), <emphasis>except</emphasis>
+<literal>Show</literal> and <literal>Read</literal>, which really behave differently for
+the newtype and its representation.
+</para>
+</sect3>
+
+<sect3> <title> A more precise specification </title>
+<para>
+Derived instance declarations are constructed as follows. Consider the
+declaration (after expansion of any type synonyms)
+
+<programlisting>
+ newtype T v1...vn = T' (S t1...tk vk+1...vn) deriving (c1...cm)
+</programlisting>
+
+where <literal>S</literal> is a type constructor, <literal>t1...tk</literal> are
+types,
+<literal>vk+1...vn</literal> are type variables which do not occur in any of
+the <literal>ti</literal>, and the <literal>ci</literal> are partial applications of
+classes of the form <literal>C t1'...tj'</literal>. The derived instance
+declarations are, for each <literal>ci</literal>,
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance ci (S t1...tk vk+1...v) => ci (T v1...vp)
+</programlisting>
+where <literal>p</literal> is chosen so that <literal>T v1...vp</literal> is of the
+right <emphasis>kind</emphasis> for the last parameter of class <literal>Ci</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+
+As an example which does <emphasis>not</emphasis> work, consider
+<programlisting>
+ newtype NonMonad m s = NonMonad (State s m s) deriving Monad
+</programlisting>
+Here we cannot derive the instance
+<programlisting>
+ instance Monad (State s m) => Monad (NonMonad m)
+</programlisting>
+
+because the type variable <literal>s</literal> occurs in <literal>State s m</literal>,
+and so cannot be "eta-converted" away. It is a good thing that this
+<literal>deriving</literal> clause is rejected, because <literal>NonMonad m</literal> is
+not, in fact, a monad --- for the same reason. Try defining
+<literal>>>=</literal> with the correct type: you won't be able to.
+</para>
+<para>
+
+Notice also that the <emphasis>order</emphasis> of class parameters becomes
+important, since we can only derive instances for the last one. If the
+<literal>StateMonad</literal> class above were instead defined as
+
+<programlisting>
+ class StateMonad m s | m -> s where ...
+</programlisting>
+
+then we would not have been able to derive an instance for the
+<literal>Parser</literal> type above. We hypothesise that multi-parameter
+classes usually have one "main" parameter for which deriving new
+instances is most interesting.
+</para>
+</sect3>
+
+</sect2>
+
+
+</sect1>
+<!-- ==================== End of type system extensions ================= -->
+
+<!-- ====================== TEMPLATE HASKELL ======================= -->
+
+<sect1 id="template-haskell">
+<title>Template Haskell</title>
+
+<para>Template Haskell allows you to do compile-time meta-programming in Haskell. The background
+the main technical innovations are discussed in "<ulink
+url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/meta-haskell">
+Template Meta-programming for Haskell</ulink>", in
+Proc Haskell Workshop 2002.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The documentation here describes the realisation in GHC. (It's rather sketchy just now;
+Tim Sheard is going to expand it.)
+</para>
+
+<sect2> <title> Syntax </title>
+<para>
+ Template Haskell has the following new syntactic constructions. You need to use the flag
+ <literal>-fglasgow-exts</literal> to switch these syntactic extensions on.
+
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem><para>
+ A splice is written <literal>$x</literal>, where <literal>x</literal> is an
+ identifier, or <literal>$(...)</literal>, where the "..." is an arbitrary expression.
+ There must be no space between the "$" and the identifier or parenthesis. This use
+ of "$" overrides its meaning as an infix operator, just as "M.x" overrides the meaning
+ of "." as an infix operator. If you want the infix operator, put spaces around it.
+ </para>
+ <para> A splice can occur in place of
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem><para> an expression;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> a list of top-level declarations;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> a pattern;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> a type;</para></listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+ </para></listitem>
+
+
+ <listitem><para>
+ A expression quotation is written in Oxford brackets, thus:
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>[| ... |]</literal>, where the "..." is an expression;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>[d| ... |]</literal>, where the "..." is a list of top-level declarations;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>[p| ... |]</literal>, where the "..." is a pattern;</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>[t| ... |]</literal>, where the "..." is a type;</para></listitem>
+ </itemizedlist></para></listitem>
+
+ <listitem><para>
+ Reification is written thus:
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>reifyDecl T</literal>, where <literal>T</literal> is a type constructor; this expression
+ has type <literal>Dec</literal>. </para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>reifyDecl C</literal>, where <literal>C</literal> is a class; has type <literal>Dec</literal>.</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> <literal>reifyType f</literal>, where <literal>f</literal> is an identifier; has type <literal>Typ</literal>.</para></listitem>
+ <listitem><para> Still to come: fixities </para></listitem>
+
+ </itemizedlist></para>
+ </listitem>
+
+
+ </itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2> <title> Using Template Haskell </title>
+<para>
+<itemizedlist>
+ <listitem><para>
+ The data types and monadic constructor functions for Template Haskell are in the library
+ <literal>Language.Haskell.THSyntax</literal>.
+ </para></listitem>
+
+ <listitem><para>
+ If the module contains any top-level splices that must be run, you must use GHC with
+ <literal>--make</literal> or <literal>--interactive</literal> flags. (Reason: that
+ means it walks the dependency tree and knows what modules must be linked etc.)
+ </para></listitem>
+
+ <listitem><para>
+ You can only run a function at compile time if it is imported from another module. That is,
+ you can't define a function in a module, and call it from within a splice in the same module.
+ (It would make sense to do so, but it's hard to implement.)
+ </para></listitem>
+
+ <listitem><para>
+ The flag <literal>-ddump-splices</literal> shows the expansion of all top-level splices as they happen.
+ </para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
+</sect1>
+
+<!-- ==================== ASSERTIONS ================= -->
+
+<sect1 id="sec-assertions">
+<title>Assertions
+<indexterm><primary>Assertions</primary></indexterm>
+</title>
+
+<para>
+If you want to make use of assertions in your standard Haskell code, you
+could define a function like the following:
+</para>
-<listitem>
<para>
-To avoid ambiguity, the type after the “<literal>::</literal>” in a result
-pattern signature on a lambda or <literal>case</literal> must be atomic (i.e. a single
-token or a parenthesised type of some sort). To see why,
-consider how one would parse this:
-
<programlisting>
- \ x :: a -> b -> x
+assert :: Bool -> a -> a
+assert False x = error "assertion failed!"
+assert _ x = x
</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+which works, but gives you back a less than useful error message --
+an assertion failed, but which and where?
</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
+<para>
+One way out is to define an extended <function>assert</function> function which also
+takes a descriptive string to include in the error message and
+perhaps combine this with the use of a pre-processor which inserts
+the source location where <function>assert</function> was used.
+</para>
<para>
- Pattern type signatures can bind existential type variables.
-For example:
+Ghc offers a helping hand here, doing all of this for you. For every
+use of <function>assert</function> in the user's source:
+</para>
+<para>
<programlisting>
- data T = forall a. MkT [a]
-
- f :: T -> T
- f (MkT [t::a]) = MkT t3
- where
- t3::[a] = [t,t,t]
+kelvinToC :: Double -> Double
+kelvinToC k = assert (k >= 0.0) (k+273.15)
</programlisting>
-
</para>
-</listitem>
-
-
-<listitem>
<para>
-Pattern type signatures
-can be used in pattern bindings:
+Ghc will rewrite this to also include the source location where the
+assertion was made,
+</para>
-<programlisting>
- f x = let (y, z::a) = x in ...
- f1 x = let (y, z::Int) = x in ...
- f2 (x::(Int,a)) = let (y, z::a) = x in ...
- f3 :: (b->b) = \x -> x
-</programlisting>
+<para>
-In all such cases, the binding is not generalised over the pattern-bound
-type variables. Thus <literal>f3</literal> is monomorphic; <literal>f3</literal>
-has type <literal>b -> b</literal> for some type <literal>b</literal>,
-and <emphasis>not</emphasis> <literal>forall b. b -> b</literal>.
-In contrast, the binding
<programlisting>
- f4 :: b->b
- f4 = \x -> x
+assert pred val ==> assertError "Main.hs|15" pred val
</programlisting>
-makes a polymorphic function, but <literal>b</literal> is not in scope anywhere
-in <literal>f4</literal>'s scope.
</para>
-</listitem>
-</itemizedlist>
+
+<para>
+The rewrite is only performed by the compiler when it spots
+applications of <function>Control.Exception.assert</function>, so you
+can still define and use your own versions of
+<function>assert</function>, should you so wish. If not, import
+<literal>Control.Exception</literal> to make use
+<function>assert</function> in your code.
</para>
-</sect2>
+<para>
+To have the compiler ignore uses of assert, use the compiler option
+<option>-fignore-asserts</option>. <indexterm><primary>-fignore-asserts
+option</primary></indexterm> That is, expressions of the form
+<literal>assert pred e</literal> will be rewritten to
+<literal>e</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+Assertion failures can be caught, see the documentation for the
+<literal>Control.Exception</literal> library for the details.
+</para>
</sect1>
+
+<!-- =============================== PRAGMAS =========================== -->
+
<sect1 id="pragmas">
<title>Pragmas</title>
</sect1>
+<!-- ======================= REWRITE RULES ======================== -->
+
<sect1 id="rewrite-rules">
<title>Rewrite rules
</sect2>
</sect1>
-<sect1 id="newtype-deriving">
-<title>Generalised derived instances for newtypes</title>
-
-<para>
-When you define an abstract type using <literal>newtype</literal>, you may want
-the new type to inherit some instances from its representation. In
-Haskell 98, you can inherit instances of <literal>Eq</literal>, <literal>Ord</literal>,
-<literal>Enum</literal> and <literal>Bounded</literal> by deriving them, but for any
-other classes you have to write an explicit instance declaration. For
-example, if you define
-
-<programlisting>
- newtype Dollars = Dollars Int
-</programlisting>
-
-and you want to use arithmetic on <literal>Dollars</literal>, you have to
-explicitly define an instance of <literal>Num</literal>:
-
-<programlisting>
- instance Num Dollars where
- Dollars a + Dollars b = Dollars (a+b)
- ...
-</programlisting>
-All the instance does is apply and remove the <literal>newtype</literal>
-constructor. It is particularly galling that, since the constructor
-doesn't appear at run-time, this instance declaration defines a
-dictionary which is <emphasis>wholly equivalent</emphasis> to the <literal>Int</literal>
-dictionary, only slower!
-</para>
-
-<sect2> <title> Generalising the deriving clause </title>
-<para>
-GHC now permits such instances to be derived instead, so one can write
-<programlisting>
- newtype Dollars = Dollars Int deriving (Eq,Show,Num)
-</programlisting>
-
-and the implementation uses the <emphasis>same</emphasis> <literal>Num</literal> dictionary
-for <literal>Dollars</literal> as for <literal>Int</literal>. Notionally, the compiler
-derives an instance declaration of the form
-
-<programlisting>
- instance Num Int => Num Dollars
-</programlisting>
-
-which just adds or removes the <literal>newtype</literal> constructor according to the type.
-</para>
-<para>
-
-We can also derive instances of constructor classes in a similar
-way. For example, suppose we have implemented state and failure monad
-transformers, such that
-
-<programlisting>
- instance Monad m => Monad (State s m)
- instance Monad m => Monad (Failure m)
-</programlisting>
-In Haskell 98, we can define a parsing monad by
-<programlisting>
- type Parser tok m a = State [tok] (Failure m) a
-</programlisting>
-
-which is automatically a monad thanks to the instance declarations
-above. With the extension, we can make the parser type abstract,
-without needing to write an instance of class <literal>Monad</literal>, via
-
-<programlisting>
- newtype Parser tok m a = Parser (State [tok] (Failure m) a)
- deriving Monad
-</programlisting>
-In this case the derived instance declaration is of the form
-<programlisting>
- instance Monad (State [tok] (Failure m)) => Monad (Parser tok m)
-</programlisting>
-
-Notice that, since <literal>Monad</literal> is a constructor class, the
-instance is a <emphasis>partial application</emphasis> of the new type, not the
-entire left hand side. We can imagine that the type declaration is
-``eta-converted'' to generate the context of the instance
-declaration.
-</para>
-<para>
-
-We can even derive instances of multi-parameter classes, provided the
-newtype is the last class parameter. In this case, a ``partial
-application'' of the class appears in the <literal>deriving</literal>
-clause. For example, given the class
-
-<programlisting>
- class StateMonad s m | m -> s where ...
- instance Monad m => StateMonad s (State s m) where ...
-</programlisting>
-then we can derive an instance of <literal>StateMonad</literal> for <literal>Parser</literal>s by
-<programlisting>
- newtype Parser tok m a = Parser (State [tok] (Failure m) a)
- deriving (Monad, StateMonad [tok])
-</programlisting>
-
-The derived instance is obtained by completing the application of the
-class to the new type:
-
-<programlisting>
- instance StateMonad [tok] (State [tok] (Failure m)) =>
- StateMonad [tok] (Parser tok m)
-</programlisting>
-</para>
-<para>
-
-As a result of this extension, all derived instances in newtype
-declarations are treated uniformly (and implemented just by reusing
-the dictionary for the representation type), <emphasis>except</emphasis>
-<literal>Show</literal> and <literal>Read</literal>, which really behave differently for
-the newtype and its representation.
-</para>
-</sect2>
-
-<sect2> <title> A more precise specification </title>
-<para>
-Derived instance declarations are constructed as follows. Consider the
-declaration (after expansion of any type synonyms)
-
-<programlisting>
- newtype T v1...vn = T' (S t1...tk vk+1...vn) deriving (c1...cm)
-</programlisting>
-
-where <literal>S</literal> is a type constructor, <literal>t1...tk</literal> are
-types,
-<literal>vk+1...vn</literal> are type variables which do not occur in any of
-the <literal>ti</literal>, and the <literal>ci</literal> are partial applications of
-classes of the form <literal>C t1'...tj'</literal>. The derived instance
-declarations are, for each <literal>ci</literal>,
-
-<programlisting>
- instance ci (S t1...tk vk+1...v) => ci (T v1...vp)
-</programlisting>
-where <literal>p</literal> is chosen so that <literal>T v1...vp</literal> is of the
-right <emphasis>kind</emphasis> for the last parameter of class <literal>Ci</literal>.
-</para>
-<para>
-
-As an example which does <emphasis>not</emphasis> work, consider
-<programlisting>
- newtype NonMonad m s = NonMonad (State s m s) deriving Monad
-</programlisting>
-Here we cannot derive the instance
-<programlisting>
- instance Monad (State s m) => Monad (NonMonad m)
-</programlisting>
-
-because the type variable <literal>s</literal> occurs in <literal>State s m</literal>,
-and so cannot be "eta-converted" away. It is a good thing that this
-<literal>deriving</literal> clause is rejected, because <literal>NonMonad m</literal> is
-not, in fact, a monad --- for the same reason. Try defining
-<literal>>>=</literal> with the correct type: you won't be able to.
-</para>
-<para>
-
-Notice also that the <emphasis>order</emphasis> of class parameters becomes
-important, since we can only derive instances for the last one. If the
-<literal>StateMonad</literal> class above were instead defined as
-
-<programlisting>
- class StateMonad m s | m -> s where ...
-</programlisting>
-
-then we would not have been able to derive an instance for the
-<literal>Parser</literal> type above. We hypothesise that multi-parameter
-classes usually have one "main" parameter for which deriving new
-instances is most interesting.
-</para>
-</sect2>
-</sect1>
-
<!-- Emacs stuff:
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff