</para>
</sect2>
- <sect2 id="new-qualified-operators">
- <title>New qualified operator syntax</title>
-
- <para>A new syntax for referencing qualified operators is
- planned to be introduced by Haskell', and is enabled in GHC
- with
- the <option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option><indexterm><primary><option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option></primary></indexterm>
- option. In the new syntax, the prefix form of a qualified
- operator is
- written <literal><replaceable>module</replaceable>.(<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)</literal>
- (without NewQualifiedOperators this would
- be <literal>(<replaceable>module</replaceable>.<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)</literal>),
- and the infix form is
- written <literal>`<replaceable>module</replaceable>.(<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)`</literal>
- (without NewQualifiedOperators this would
- be <literal>`<replaceable>module</replaceable>.<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>`</literal>.
- For example:
-<programlisting>
- add x y = Prelude.(+) x y
- subtract y = (`Prelude.(-)` y)
-</programlisting>
- The new form of qualified operators is intended to regularise
- the syntax by eliminating odd cases
- like <literal>Prelude..</literal>. For example,
- when <literal>NewQualifiedOperators</literal> is on, it is possible to
- write the enumerated sequence <literal>[Monday..]</literal>
- without spaces, whereas without NewQualifiedOperators this would be a
- reference to the operator ‘<literal>.</literal>‘
- from module <literal>Monday</literal>.</para>
-
- <para>When <option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option> is on, the old
- syntax for qualified operators is not accepted, so this
- option may cause existing code to break.</para>
-
- </sect2>
-
-
<!-- ====================== HIERARCHICAL MODULES ======================= -->
<sect2 id="gadt-style">
<title>Declaring data types with explicit constructor signatures</title>
-<para>GHC allows you to declare an algebraic data type by
+<para>When the <literal>GADTSyntax</literal> extension is enabled,
+GHC allows you to declare an algebraic data type by
giving the type signatures of constructors explicitly. For example:
<programlisting>
data Maybe a where
the <emphasis>instance declaration</emphasis> itself, controlled by the
presence or otherwise of the <option>-XOverlappingInstances</option>
and <option>-XIncoherentInstances</option> flags when that module is
-being defined. Neither flag is required in a module that imports and uses the
-instance declaration. Specifically, during the lookup process:
+being defined. Specifically, during the lookup process:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>
-An instance declaration is ignored during the lookup process if (a) a more specific
-match is found, and (b) the instance declaration was compiled with
-<option>-XOverlappingInstances</option>. The flag setting for the
-more-specific instance does not matter.
+If the constraint being looked up matches two instance declarations IA and IB,
+and
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>IB is a substitution instance of IA (but not vice versa);
+that is, IB is strictly more specific than IA</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>either IA or IB was compiled with <option>-XOverlappingInstances</option></para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+then the less-specific instance IA is ignored.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
Suppose an instance declaration does not match the constraint being looked up, but
-does unify with it, so that it might match when the constraint is further
+does <emphasis>unify</emphasis> with it, so that it might match when the constraint is further
instantiated. Usually GHC will regard this as a reason for not committing to
some other constraint. But if the instance declaration was compiled with
<option>-XIncoherentInstances</option>, GHC will skip the "does-it-unify?"
These rules make it possible for a library author to design a library that relies on
overlapping instances without the library client having to know.
</para>
-<para>
-If an instance declaration is compiled without
-<option>-XOverlappingInstances</option>,
-then that instance can never be overlapped. This could perhaps be
-inconvenient. Perhaps the rule should instead say that the
-<emphasis>overlapping</emphasis> instance declaration should be compiled in
-this way, rather than the <emphasis>overlapped</emphasis> one. Perhaps overlap
-at a usage site should be permitted regardless of how the instance declarations
-are compiled, if the <option>-XOverlappingInstances</option> flag is
-used at the usage site. (Mind you, the exact usage site can occasionally be
-hard to pin down.) We are interested to receive feedback on these points.
-</para>
<para>The <option>-XIncoherentInstances</option> flag implies the
<option>-XOverlappingInstances</option> flag, but not vice versa.
</para>
<para>
Use the debug flag <option>-ddump-simpl-stats</option> to see what rules fired.
If you need more information, then <option>-ddump-rule-firings</option> shows you
-each individual rule firing in detail.
+each individual rule firing and <option>-ddump-rule-rewrites</option> also shows what the code looks like before and after the rewrite.
</para>
<sect2>
<listitem>
<para>
- Use <option>-ddump-rule-firings</option> to see in great detail what rules are being fired.
+ Use <option>-ddump-rule-firings</option> or <option>-ddump-rule-rewrites</option>
+to see in great detail what rules are being fired.
If you add <option>-dppr-debug</option> you get a still more detailed listing.
</para>
</listitem>
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff