</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>Class method types:</term>
- <listitem>
- <para><xref LinkEnd="classs-method-types"></para>
- </listitem>
- </varlistentry>
-
- <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 -->
+<!-- included from primitives.sgml -->
&primitives;
-<sect1 id="glasgow-ST-monad">
-<title>Primitive state-transformer monad</title>
-
-<para>
-<indexterm><primary>state transformers (Glasgow extensions)</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>ST monad (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
-</para>
-
-<para>
-This monad underlies our implementation of arrays, mutable and
-immutable, and our implementation of I/O, including “C calls”.
-</para>
-
-<para>
-The <literal>ST</literal> library, which provides access to the
-<function>ST</function> monad, is described in <xref
-linkend="sec-ST">.
-</para>
-
-</sect1>
-
-<sect1 id="glasgow-prim-arrays">
-<title>Primitive arrays, mutable and otherwise
-</title>
-
-<para>
-<indexterm><primary>primitive arrays (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>arrays, primitive (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
-</para>
-
-<para>
-GHC knows about quite a few flavours of Large Swathes of Bytes.
-</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>).
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Second, it distinguishes between…
-<variablelist>
-
-<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.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-<varlistentry>
-<term>Mutable:</term>
-<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>.
-</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.
-</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.
-</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.”
-</para>
-<para>
-Please see <xref LinkEnd="sec-ForeignObj"> for more details.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-</varlistentry>
-</variablelist>
-</para>
+<!-- TYPE SYSTEM EXTENSIONS -->
+<sect1 id="type-extensions">
+<title>Type system extensions</title>
-<para>
-The libraries documentatation gives more details on all these
-“primitive array” types and the operations on them.
-</para>
-
-</sect1>
-
-
-<sect1 id="nullary-types">
+<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>
data S -- S :: *
data T a -- T :: * -> *
</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>
+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>
<para>Such data types have only one value, namely bottom.
Nevertheless, they can be useful when defining "phantom types".</para>
-</sect1>
-
-<sect1 id="pattern-guards">
-<title>Pattern guards</title>
-
-<para>
-<indexterm><primary>Pattern guards (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
-The discussion that follows is an abbreviated version of Simon Peyton Jones's original <ULink URL="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/guards.html">proposal</ULink>. (Note that the proposal was written before pattern guards were implemented, so refers to them as unimplemented.)
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Suppose we have an abstract data type of finite maps, with a
-lookup operation:
-
-<programlisting>
-lookup :: FiniteMap -> Int -> Maybe Int
-</programlisting>
-
-The lookup returns <function>Nothing</function> if the supplied key is not in the domain of the mapping, and <function>(Just v)</function> otherwise,
-where <VarName>v</VarName> is the value that the key maps to. Now consider the following definition:
-</para>
-
-<programlisting>
-clunky env var1 var2 | ok1 && ok2 = val1 + val2
-| otherwise = var1 + var2
-where
- m1 = lookup env var1
- m2 = lookup env var2
- ok1 = maybeToBool m1
- ok2 = maybeToBool m2
- val1 = expectJust m1
- val2 = expectJust m2
-</programlisting>
-
-<para>
-The auxiliary functions are
-</para>
+</sect2>
-<programlisting>
-maybeToBool :: Maybe a -> Bool
-maybeToBool (Just x) = True
-maybeToBool Nothing = False
-
-expectJust :: Maybe a -> a
-expectJust (Just x) = x
-expectJust Nothing = error "Unexpected Nothing"
-</programlisting>
+<sect2 id="infix-tycons">
+<title>Infix type constructors</title>
<para>
-What is <function>clunky</function> doing? The guard <literal>ok1 &&
-ok2</literal> checks that both lookups succeed, using
-<function>maybeToBool</function> to convert the <function>Maybe</function>
-types to booleans. The (lazily evaluated) <function>expectJust</function>
-calls extract the values from the results of the lookups, and binds the
-returned values to <VarName>val1</VarName> and <VarName>val2</VarName>
-respectively. If either lookup fails, then clunky takes the
-<literal>otherwise</literal> case and returns the sum of its arguments.
-</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>
-<para>
-This is certainly legal Haskell, but it is a tremendously verbose and
-un-obvious way to achieve the desired effect. Arguably, a more direct way
-to write clunky would be to use case expressions:
+</itemizedlist>
</para>
+</sect2>
-<programlisting>
-clunky env var1 var1 = case lookup env var1 of
- Nothing -> fail
- Just val1 -> case lookup env var2 of
- Nothing -> fail
- Just val2 -> val1 + val2
-where
- fail = val1 + val2
-</programlisting>
+<sect2 id="sec-kinding">
+<title>Explicitly-kinded quantification</title>
<para>
-This is a bit shorter, but hardly better. Of course, we can rewrite any set
-of pattern-matching, guarded equations as case expressions; that is
-precisely what the compiler does when compiling equations! The reason that
-Haskell provides guarded equations is because they allow us to write down
-the cases we want to consider, one at a time, independently of each other.
-This structure is hidden in the case version. Two of the right-hand sides
-are really the same (<function>fail</function>), and the whole expression
-tends to become more and more indented.
+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>
-Here is how I would write clunky:
-</para>
-
-<programlisting>
-clunky env var1 var1
- | Just val1 <- lookup env var1
- , Just val2 <- lookup env var2
- = val1 + val2
-...other equations for clunky...
-</programlisting>
-
-<para>
-The semantics should be clear enough. The qualifers are matched in order.
-For a <literal><-</literal> qualifier, which I call a pattern guard, the
-right hand side is evaluated and matched against the pattern on the left.
-If the match fails then the whole guard fails and the next equation is
-tried. If it succeeds, then the appropriate binding takes place, and the
-next qualifier is matched, in the augmented environment. Unlike list
-comprehensions, however, the type of the expression to the right of the
-<literal><-</literal> is the same as the type of the pattern to its
-left. The bindings introduced by pattern guards scope over all the
-remaining guard qualifiers, and over the right hand side of the equation.
+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>
-Just as with list comprehensions, boolean expressions can be freely mixed
-with among the pattern guards. For example:
+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>
-<programlisting>
-f x | [y] <- x
- , y > 3
- , Just z <- h y
- = ...
-</programlisting>
-
<para>
-Haskell's current guards therefore emerge as a special case, in which the
-qualifier list has just one element, a boolean expression.
+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>
-</sect1>
-
- <sect1 id="parallel-list-comprehensions">
- <title>Parallel List Comprehensions</title>
- <indexterm><primary>list comprehensions</primary><secondary>parallel</secondary>
- </indexterm>
- <indexterm><primary>parallel list comprehensions</primary>
- </indexterm>
-
- <para>Parallel list comprehensions are a natural extension to list
- comprehensions. List comprehensions can be thought of as a nice
- syntax for writing maps and filters. Parallel comprehensions
- extend this to include the zipWith family.</para>
-
- <para>A parallel list comprehension has multiple independent
- branches of qualifier lists, each separated by a `|' symbol. For
- example, the following zips together two lists:</para>
-
-<programlisting>
- [ (x, y) | x <- xs | y <- ys ]
-</programlisting>
-
- <para>The behavior of parallel list comprehensions follows that of
- zip, in that the resulting list will have the same length as the
- shortest branch.</para>
-
- <para>We can define parallel list comprehensions by translation to
- regular comprehensions. Here's the basic idea:</para>
-
- <para>Given a parallel comprehension of the form: </para>
-
-<programlisting>
- [ e | p1 <- e11, p2 <- e12, ...
- | q1 <- e21, q2 <- e22, ...
- ...
- ]
-</programlisting>
-
- <para>This will be translated to: </para>
-
-<programlisting>
- [ e | ((p1,p2), (q1,q2), ...) <- zipN [(p1,p2) | p1 <- e11, p2 <- e12, ...]
- [(q1,q2) | q1 <- e21, q2 <- e22, ...]
- ...
- ]
-</programlisting>
-
- <para>where `zipN' is the appropriate zip for the given number of
- branches.</para>
+</sect2>
- </sect1>
-<sect1 id="class-method-types">
+<sect2 id="class-method-types">
<title>Class method types
</title>
<para>
With the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> GHC lifts this restriction.
</para>
-</sect1>
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="multi-param-type-classes">
+<sect2 id="multi-param-type-classes">
<title>Multi-parameter type classes
</title>
feedback.
</para>
-<sect2>
+<sect3>
<title>Types</title>
<para>
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>
class constraints.
</para>
<para>
-An implicit parameter is bound using an expression of the form
-<emphasis>expr</emphasis> <literal>with</literal> <emphasis>binds</emphasis>,
-where <literal>with</literal> is a new keyword. This form binds the implicit
-parameters arising in the body, not the free variables as a <literal>let</literal> or
-<literal>where</literal> would do. For example, we define the <literal>min</literal> function by binding
-<literal>cmp</literal>.
+An implicit parameter is bound using the standard
+<literal>let</literal> binding form, where the bindings 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. This form binds the implicit
+parameters arising in the body, not the free variables as a
+<literal>let</literal> or <literal>where</literal> would do. For
+example, we define the <literal>min</literal> function by binding
+<literal>cmp</literal>.</para>
<programlisting>
min :: [a] -> a
- min = least with ?cmp = (<=)
+ min = let ?cmp = (<=) in least
</programlisting>
-Syntactically, the <emphasis>binds</emphasis> part of a <literal>with</literal> construct must be a
-collection of simple bindings to variables (no function-style
-bindings, and no type signatures); these bindings are neither
-polymorphic or recursive.
-</para>
<para>
-Note the following additional constraints:
+Note the following points:
<itemizedlist>
+<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.
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You may put multiple implicit-parameter bindings in a
+single <literal>let</literal> expression; 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, each scoping over the bindings that
+follow. For example, consider:
+<programlisting>
+ f y = let { ?x = y; ?x = ?x+1 } in ?x
+</programlisting>
+This function adds one to its argument.
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+You may not have an implicit-parameter binding in a <literal>where</literal> clause,
+only in a <literal>let</literal> binding.
+</para></listitem>
+
<listitem>
<para> You can't have an implicit parameter in the context of a class or instance
declaration. For example, both these declarations are illegal:
</itemizedlist>
</para>
-</sect1>
+</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="implicit-quant">
+<sect3 id="implicit-quant">
<title>Implicit quantification</title>
<para>
can write your for-alls explicitly. Indeed, doing so is strongly advised
for rank-2 types.
</para>
+</sect3>
</sect2>
-</sect1>
-<sect1 id="hoist">
-<title>Type synonyms and hoisting
+<sect2 id="type-synonyms">
+<title>Liberalised type synonyms
</title>
<para>
-Type synonmys are like macros at the type level, and GHC is much more liberal
-about them than Haskell 98. In particular:
+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:
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 does validity checking on types <emphasis>after expanding type synonyms</emphasis>
-so, for example,
+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 #)
</programlisting>
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>
-However, it is often convenient to use these sort of generalised synonyms at the right hand
+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
g :: Int -> Int -> forall b. b -> Int
</programlisting>
</para>
-</sect1>
+<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 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>
</para>
-</sect2>
+</sect3>
-</sect1>
+</sect2>
-<sect1 id="scoped-type-variables">
-<title>Scoped Type Variables
+<sect2 id="scoped-type-variables">
+<title>Scoped type variables
</title>
<para>
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>
+
+
+</sect1>
+<!-- ==================== End of type system extensions ================= -->
+
+
+<!-- ==================== 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>
+
+<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>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>
+
+<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>
+
+
+<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>
+
+<programlisting>
+import qualified Control.Monad.ST.Strict as ST
+</programlisting>
+
+ <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 ======================= -->
+
+<sect2 id="pattern-guards">
+<title>Pattern guards</title>
+
+<para>
+<indexterm><primary>Pattern guards (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
+The discussion that follows is an abbreviated version of Simon Peyton Jones's original <ULink URL="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/guards.html">proposal</ULink>. (Note that the proposal was written before pattern guards were implemented, so refers to them as unimplemented.)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Suppose we have an abstract data type of finite maps, with a
+lookup operation:
+
+<programlisting>
+lookup :: FiniteMap -> Int -> Maybe Int
+</programlisting>
+
+The lookup returns <function>Nothing</function> if the supplied key is not in the domain of the mapping, and <function>(Just v)</function> otherwise,
+where <VarName>v</VarName> is the value that the key maps to. Now consider the following definition:
+</para>
+
+<programlisting>
+clunky env var1 var2 | ok1 && ok2 = val1 + val2
+| otherwise = var1 + var2
+where
+ m1 = lookup env var1
+ m2 = lookup env var2
+ ok1 = maybeToBool m1
+ ok2 = maybeToBool m2
+ val1 = expectJust m1
+ val2 = expectJust m2
+</programlisting>
+
+<para>
+The auxiliary functions are
+</para>
+
+<programlisting>
+maybeToBool :: Maybe a -> Bool
+maybeToBool (Just x) = True
+maybeToBool Nothing = False
+
+expectJust :: Maybe a -> a
+expectJust (Just x) = x
+expectJust Nothing = error "Unexpected Nothing"
+</programlisting>
+
+<para>
+What is <function>clunky</function> doing? The guard <literal>ok1 &&
+ok2</literal> checks that both lookups succeed, using
+<function>maybeToBool</function> to convert the <function>Maybe</function>
+types to booleans. The (lazily evaluated) <function>expectJust</function>
+calls extract the values from the results of the lookups, and binds the
+returned values to <VarName>val1</VarName> and <VarName>val2</VarName>
+respectively. If either lookup fails, then clunky takes the
+<literal>otherwise</literal> case and returns the sum of its arguments.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+This is certainly legal Haskell, but it is a tremendously verbose and
+un-obvious way to achieve the desired effect. Arguably, a more direct way
+to write clunky would be to use case expressions:
+</para>
+
+<programlisting>
+clunky env var1 var1 = case lookup env var1 of
+ Nothing -> fail
+ Just val1 -> case lookup env var2 of
+ Nothing -> fail
+ Just val2 -> val1 + val2
+where
+ fail = val1 + val2
+</programlisting>
+
+<para>
+This is a bit shorter, but hardly better. Of course, we can rewrite any set
+of pattern-matching, guarded equations as case expressions; that is
+precisely what the compiler does when compiling equations! The reason that
+Haskell provides guarded equations is because they allow us to write down
+the cases we want to consider, one at a time, independently of each other.
+This structure is hidden in the case version. Two of the right-hand sides
+are really the same (<function>fail</function>), and the whole expression
+tends to become more and more indented.
+</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:
-
+Here is how I would write clunky:
+</para>
<programlisting>
- \ x :: a -> b -> x
+clunky env var1 var1
+ | Just val1 <- lookup env var1
+ , Just val2 <- lookup env var2
+ = val1 + val2
+...other equations for clunky...
</programlisting>
-
+<para>
+The semantics should be clear enough. The qualifers are matched in order.
+For a <literal><-</literal> qualifier, which I call a pattern guard, the
+right hand side is evaluated and matched against the pattern on the left.
+If the match fails then the whole guard fails and the next equation is
+tried. If it succeeds, then the appropriate binding takes place, and the
+next qualifier is matched, in the augmented environment. Unlike list
+comprehensions, however, the type of the expression to the right of the
+<literal><-</literal> is the same as the type of the pattern to its
+left. The bindings introduced by pattern guards scope over all the
+remaining guard qualifiers, and over the right hand side of the equation.
</para>
-</listitem>
-
-<listitem>
<para>
- Pattern type signatures can bind existential type variables.
-For example:
-
+Just as with list comprehensions, boolean expressions can be freely mixed
+with among the pattern guards. For example:
+</para>
<programlisting>
- data T = forall a. MkT [a]
-
- f :: T -> T
- f (MkT [t::a]) = MkT t3
- where
- t3::[a] = [t,t,t]
+f x | [y] <- x
+ , y > 3
+ , Just z <- h y
+ = ...
</programlisting>
-
+<para>
+Haskell's current guards therefore emerge as a special case, in which the
+qualifier list has just one element, a boolean expression.
</para>
-</listitem>
+</sect2>
+<!-- ===================== Recursive do-notation =================== -->
-<listitem>
+<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>
-Pattern type signatures
-can be used in pattern bindings:
-
+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>
- 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
+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>
-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
+<para>
+The MonadFix library introduces the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class. It's definition is:
+</para>
<programlisting>
- f4 :: b->b
- f4 = \x -> x
+class Monad m => MonadFix m where
+ mfix :: (a -> m a) -> m a
</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 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>
-
-</sect2>
-</sect1>
-
-<sect1 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>.
+The <literal>MonadFix</literal> library automatically declares List, Maybe, IO, and
+state monads (both lazy and strict) as instances of the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class.
</para>
<para>
-GHC now instead allows you to specify the kind of a type variable directly, wherever
-a type variable is explicitly bound. Namely:
+There are three important points in using the recursive-do notation:
<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>
+<listitem><para>
+The recursive version of the do-notation uses the keyword <literal>mdo</literal> (rather
+than <literal>do</literal>).
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+If you want to declare an instance of the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class for one of
+your own monads, or you need to refer to the class name <literal>MonadFix</literal> in any other way (for instance in
+writing a type constraint), then your program should <literal>import Control.Monad.MonadFix</literal>.
+Otherwise, you don't need to import any special libraries to use the mdo-notation. That is,
+as long as you only use the predefined instances mentioned above, the mdo-notation will
+be automatically available. (Note: This differs from the Hugs implementation, where
+<literal>MonadFix</literal> should always be imported.)
+</para></listitem>
+
+<listitem><para>
+As with other extensions, ghc should be given the flag <literal>-fglasgow-exts</literal>
+</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.
+Historical note: The originial implementation of the mdo-notation, and most
+of the existing documents, use the names
+<literal>MonadRec</literal> for the class, and
+<literal>Control.Monad.MonadRec</literal> for the library. These names
+are no longer supported.
</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.
+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>
-</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>
+</sect2>
-<para>
+<!-- ===================== PARALLEL LIST COMPREHENSIONS =================== -->
+
+ <sect2 id="parallel-list-comprehensions">
+ <title>Parallel List Comprehensions</title>
+ <indexterm><primary>list comprehensions</primary><secondary>parallel</secondary>
+ </indexterm>
+ <indexterm><primary>parallel list comprehensions</primary>
+ </indexterm>
+
+ <para>Parallel list comprehensions are a natural extension to list
+ comprehensions. List comprehensions can be thought of as a nice
+ syntax for writing maps and filters. Parallel comprehensions
+ extend this to include the zipWith family.</para>
+
+ <para>A parallel list comprehension has multiple independent
+ branches of qualifier lists, each separated by a `|' symbol. For
+ example, the following zips together two lists:</para>
<programlisting>
-assert :: Bool -> a -> a
-assert False x = error "assertion failed!"
-assert _ x = x
+ [ (x, y) | x <- xs | y <- ys ]
</programlisting>
-</para>
+ <para>The behavior of parallel list comprehensions follows that of
+ zip, in that the resulting list will have the same length as the
+ shortest branch.</para>
-<para>
-which works, but gives you back a less than useful error message --
-an assertion failed, but which and where?
-</para>
+ <para>We can define parallel list comprehensions by translation to
+ regular comprehensions. Here's the basic idea:</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>Given a parallel comprehension of the form: </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>
+<programlisting>
+ [ e | p1 <- e11, p2 <- e12, ...
+ | q1 <- e21, q2 <- e22, ...
+ ...
+ ]
+</programlisting>
-<para>
+ <para>This will be translated to: </para>
<programlisting>
-kelvinToC :: Double -> Double
-kelvinToC k = assert (k >= 0.0) (k+273.15)
+ [ e | ((p1,p2), (q1,q2), ...) <- zipN [(p1,p2) | p1 <- e11, p2 <- e12, ...]
+ [(q1,q2) | q1 <- e21, q2 <- e22, ...]
+ ...
+ ]
</programlisting>
-</para>
+ <para>where `zipN' is the appropriate zip for the given number of
+ branches.</para>
-<para>
-Ghc will rewrite this to also include the source location where the
-assertion was made,
-</para>
+ </sect2>
-<para>
+<sect2 id="rebindable-syntax">
+<title>Rebindable syntax</title>
-<programlisting>
-assert pred val ==> assertError "Main.hs|15" pred val
-</programlisting>
-</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>
-<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>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>
-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>
+ <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>
-Assertion failures can be caught, see the documentation for the
-<literal>Exception</literal> library (<xref linkend="sec-Exception">)
-for the details.
-</para>
+ <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>
+
+ <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>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>
+
+</sect2>
</sect1>
+<!-- =============================== PRAGMAS =========================== -->
+
<sect1 id="pragmas">
<title>Pragmas</title>
</sect1>
+<!-- ======================= REWRITE RULES ======================== -->
+
<sect1 id="rewrite-rules">
<title>Rewrite rules
instances is most interesting.
</para>
</sect2>
+
</sect1>
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff