</varlistentry>
<varlistentry>
+ <term><option>-farrows</option></term>
+ <indexterm><primary><option>-farrows</option></primary></indexterm>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>See <xref LinkEnd="arrow-notation">. Independent of
+ <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>.</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </varlistentry>
+
+ <varlistentry>
<term><option>-fgenerics</option></term>
<indexterm><primary><option>-fgenerics</option></primary></indexterm>
<listitem>
</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 :+:
-
- 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">
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>
+<sect3 id="type-restrictions">
<title>Types</title>
<para>
-There are the following restrictions on the form of a qualified
-type:
-</para>
-
-<para>
+GHC imposes the following restrictions on the form of a qualified
+type, whether declared in a type signature
+or inferred. Consider the type:
<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,
<para>
<emphasis>Each universally quantified type variable
-<literal>tvi</literal> must be mentioned (i.e. appear free) in <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
+<literal>tvi</literal> must be reachable from <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
+A type variable is "reachable" if it it is functionally dependent
+(see <xref linkend="functional-dependencies">)
+on the type variables free in <literal>type</literal>.
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:
+ambiguity.
+Here, for example, is an illegal type:
<programlisting>
</para>
-<para>
-These restrictions apply to all types, whether declared in a type signature
-or inferred.
-</para>
<para>
Unlike Haskell 1.4, constraints in types do <emphasis>not</emphasis> have to be of
</para>
</listitem>
-<listitem>
-
-<para>
- <emphasis>In the signature of a class operation, every constraint
-must mention at least one type variable that is not a class type
-variable</emphasis>.
-
-Thus:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class Collection c a where
- mapC :: Collection c b => (a->b) -> c a -> c b
-</programlisting>
-
-
-is OK because the constraint <literal>(Collection a b)</literal> mentions
-<literal>b</literal>, even though it also mentions the class variable
-<literal>a</literal>. On the other hand:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class C a where
- op :: Eq a => (a,b) -> (a,b)
-</programlisting>
-
-
-is not OK because the constraint <literal>(Eq a)</literal> mentions on the class
-type variable <literal>a</literal>, but not <literal>b</literal>. However, any such
-example is easily fixed by moving the offending context up to the
-superclass context:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class Eq a => C a where
- op ::(a,b) -> (a,b)
-</programlisting>
-
-
-A yet more relaxed rule would allow the context of a class-op signature
-to mention only class type variables. However, that conflicts with
-Rule 1(b) for types above.
-</para>
-</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
- <emphasis>The type of each class operation must mention <emphasis>all</emphasis> of
-the class type variables</emphasis>. For example:
+ <emphasis>All of the class type variables must be reachable (in the sense
+mentioned in <xref linkend="type-restrictions">)
+from the free varibles of each method type
+</emphasis>. For example:
<programlisting>
instance Stateful (ST s) (MutVar s) where ...
</programlisting>
-
-The "at least one not a type variable" restriction is to ensure that
-context reduction terminates: each reduction step removes one type
-constructor. For example, the following would make the type checker
-loop if it wasn't excluded:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- instance C a => C a where ...
-</programlisting>
-
-
-There are two situations in which the rule is a bit of a pain. First,
-if one allows overlapping instance declarations then it's quite
-convenient to have a "default instance" declaration that applies if
-something more specific does not:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- instance C a where
- op = ... -- Default
-</programlisting>
-
-
-Second, sometimes you might want to use the following to get the
-effect of a "class synonym":
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => C a where { }
-
- instance (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => C a where { }
-</programlisting>
-
-
-This allows you to write shorter signatures:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- f :: C a => ...
-</programlisting>
-
-
-instead of
-
-
-<programlisting>
- f :: (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => ...
-</programlisting>
-
-
-I'm on the lookout for a simple rule that preserves decidability while
-allowing these idioms. The experimental flag
-<option>-fallow-undecidable-instances</option><indexterm><primary>-fallow-undecidable-instances
-option</primary></indexterm> lifts this restriction, allowing all the types in an
-instance head to be type variables.
-
+See <xref linkend="undecidable-instances"> for an experimental
+extension to lift this restriction.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</programlisting>
-is not OK. Again, the intent here is to make sure that context
-reduction terminates.
+is not OK. See <xref linkend="undecidable-instances"> for an experimental
+extension to lift this restriction.
+
-Voluminous correspondence on the Haskell mailing list has convinced me
-that it's worth experimenting with a more liberal rule. If you use
-the flag <option>-fallow-undecidable-instances</option> can use arbitrary
-types in an instance context. Termination is ensured by having a
-fixed-depth recursion stack. If you exceed the stack depth you get a
-sort of backtrace, and the opportunity to increase the stack depth
-with <option>-fcontext-stack</option><emphasis>N</emphasis>.
</para>
</listitem>
</sect2>
+<sect2 id="undecidable-instances">
+<title>Undecidable instances</title>
+
+<para>The rules for instance declarations state that:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>At least one of the types in the <emphasis>head</emphasis> of
+an instance declaration <emphasis>must not</emphasis> be a type variable.
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>All of the types in the <emphasis>context</emphasis> of
+an instance declaration <emphasis>must</emphasis> be type variables.
+</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+These restrictions ensure that
+context reduction terminates: each reduction step removes one type
+constructor. For example, the following would make the type checker
+loop if it wasn't excluded:
+<programlisting>
+ instance C a => C a where ...
+</programlisting>
+There are two situations in which the rule is a bit of a pain. First,
+if one allows overlapping instance declarations then it's quite
+convenient to have a "default instance" declaration that applies if
+something more specific does not:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ instance C a where
+ op = ... -- Default
+</programlisting>
+
+
+Second, sometimes you might want to use the following to get the
+effect of a "class synonym":
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ class (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => C a where { }
+
+ instance (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => C a where { }
+</programlisting>
+
+
+This allows you to write shorter signatures:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ f :: C a => ...
+</programlisting>
+
+
+instead of
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ f :: (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => ...
+</programlisting>
+
+
+Voluminous correspondence on the Haskell mailing list has convinced me
+that it's worth experimenting with more liberal rules. If you use
+the experimental flag <option>-fallow-undecidable-instances</option>
+<indexterm><primary>-fallow-undecidable-instances
+option</primary></indexterm>, you can use arbitrary
+types in both an instance context and instance head. Termination is ensured by having a
+fixed-depth recursion stack. If you exceed the stack depth you get a
+sort of backtrace, and the opportunity to increase the stack depth
+with <option>-fcontext-stack</option><emphasis>N</emphasis>.
+</para>
+<para>
+I'm on the lookout for a less brutal solution: a simple rule that preserves decidability while
+allowing these idioms interesting idioms.
+</para>
+</sect2>
+
<sect2 id="implicit-parameters">
<title>Implicit parameters
</title>
ESOP 2000, Berlin, Germany, March 2000, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1782,
.
</para>
-
<para>
+Functional dependencies are introduced by a vertical bar in the syntax of a
+class declaration; e.g.
+<programlisting>
+ class (Monad m) => MonadState s m | m -> s where ...
+
+ class Foo a b c | a b -> c where ...
+</programlisting>
There should be more documentation, but there isn't (yet). Yell if you need it.
</para>
</sect2>
<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
+<para>Template Haskell allows you to do compile-time meta-programming in Haskell. There is a "home page" for
+Template Haskell at <ulink url="http://www.haskell.org/th/">
+http://www.haskell.org/th/</ulink>, while
+the background to
+the main technical innovations is discussed in "<ulink
url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/meta-haskell">
-Template Meta-programming for Haskell</ulink>", in
-Proc Haskell Workshop 2002.
+Template Meta-programming for Haskell</ulink>" (Proc Haskell Workshop 2002).
</para>
<para> The first example from that paper is set out below as a worked example to help get you started.
</sect1>
+<!-- ===================== Arrow notation =================== -->
+
+<sect1 id="arrow-notation">
+<title>Arrow notation
+</title>
+
+<para>Arrows are a generalization of monads introduced by John Hughes.
+For more details, see
+<itemizedlist>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+“Generalising Monads to Arrows”,
+John Hughes, in <citetitle>Science of Computer Programming</citetitle> 37,
+pp67–111, May 2000.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+“<ulink url="http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/papers/notation.html">A New Notation for Arrows</ulink>”,
+Ross Paterson, in <citetitle>ICFP</citetitle>, Sep 2001.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+“<ulink url="http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/papers/fop.html">Arrows and Computation</ulink>”,
+Ross Paterson, in <citetitle>The Fun of Programming</citetitle>,
+Palgrave, 2003.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+</itemizedlist>
+and the arrows web page at
+<ulink url="http://www.haskell.org/arrows/"><literal>http://www.haskell.org/arrows/</literal></ulink>.
+With the <option>-farrows</option> flag, GHC supports the arrow
+notation described in the second of these papers.
+What follows is a brief introduction to the notation;
+it won't make much sense unless you've read Hughes's paper.
+This notation is translated to ordinary Haskell,
+using combinators from the
+<ulink url="../base/Control.Arrow.html"><literal>Control.Arrow</literal></ulink>
+module.
+</para>
+
+<para>The extension adds a new kind of expression for defining arrows,
+of the form <literal>proc pat -> cmd</literal>,
+where <literal>proc</literal> is a new keyword.
+The variables of the pattern are bound in the body of the
+<literal>proc</literal>-expression,
+which is a new sort of thing called a <firstterm>command</firstterm>.
+The syntax of commands is as follows:
+<screen>
+cmd ::= exp1 -< exp2
+ | exp1 -<< exp2
+ | do { cstmt1 .. cstmtn ; cmd }
+ | let decls in cmd
+ | if exp then cmd1 else cmd2
+ | case exp of { calts }
+ | cmd1 qop cmd2
+ | (| aexp cmd1 .. cmdn |)
+ | \ pat1 .. patn -> cmd
+ | cmd aexp
+ | ( cmd )
+
+cstmt ::= let decls
+ | pat <- cmd
+ | rec { cstmt1 .. cstmtn }
+ | cmd
+</screen>
+Commands produce values, but (like monadic computations)
+may yield more than one value,
+or none, and may do other things as well.
+For the most part, familiarity with monadic notation is a good guide to
+using commands.
+However the values of expressions, even monadic ones,
+are determined by the values of the variables they contain;
+this is not necessarily the case for commands.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+A simple example of the new notation is the expression
+<screen>
+proc x -> f -< x+1
+</screen>
+We call this a <firstterm>procedure</firstterm> or
+<firstterm>arrow abstraction</firstterm>.
+As with a lambda expression, the variable <literal>x</literal>
+is a new variable bound within the <literal>proc</literal>-expression.
+It refers to the input to the arrow.
+In the above example, <literal>-<</literal> is not an identifier but an
+new reserved symbol used for building commands from an expression of arrow
+type and an expression to be fed as input to that arrow.
+(The weird look will make more sense later.)
+It may be read as analogue of application for arrows.
+The above example is equivalent to the Haskell expression
+<screen>
+arr (\ x -> x+1) >>> f
+</screen>
+That would make no sense if the expression to the left of
+<literal>-<</literal> involves the bound variable <literal>x</literal>.
+More generally, the expression to the left of <literal>-<</literal>
+may not involve any <firstterm>local variable</firstterm>,
+i.e. a variable bound in the current arrow abstraction.
+For such a situation there is a variant <literal>-<<</literal>, as in
+<screen>
+proc x -> f x -<< x+1
+</screen>
+which is equivalent to
+<screen>
+arr (\ x -> (f, x+1)) >>> app
+</screen>
+so in this case the arrow must belong to the <literal>ArrowApply</literal>
+class.
+Such an arrow is equivalent to a monad, so if you're using this form
+you may find a monadic formulation more convenient.
+</para>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>do-notation for commands</title>
+
+<para>
+Another form of command is a form of <literal>do</literal>-notation.
+For example, you can write
+<screen>
+proc x -> do
+ y <- f -< x+1
+ g -< 2*y
+ let z = x+y
+ t <- h -< x*z
+ returnA -< t+z
+</screen>
+You can read this much like ordinary <literal>do</literal>-notation,
+but with commands in place of monadic expressions.
+The first line sends the value of <literal>x+1</literal> as an input to
+the arrow <literal>f</literal>, and matches its output against
+<literal>y</literal>.
+In the next line, the output is discarded.
+The arrow <literal>returnA</literal> is defined in the
+<ulink url="../base/Control.Arrow.html"><literal>Control.Arrow</literal></ulink>
+module as <literal>arr id</literal>.
+The above example is treated as an abbreviation for
+<screen>
+arr (\ x -> (x, x)) >>>
+ first (arr (\ x -> x+1) >>> f) >>>
+ arr (\ (y, x) -> (y, (x, y))) >>>
+ first (arr (\ y -> 2*y) >>> g) >>>
+ arr snd >>>
+ arr (\ (x, y) -> let z = x+y in ((x, z), z)) >>>
+ first (arr (\ (x, z) -> x*z) >>> h) >>>
+ arr (\ (t, z) -> t+z) >>>
+ returnA
+</screen>
+Note that variables not used later in the composition are projected out.
+After simplification using rewrite rules (see <xref linkEnd="rewrite-rules">)
+defined in the
+<ulink url="../base/Control.Arrow.html"><literal>Control.Arrow</literal></ulink>
+module, this reduces to
+<screen>
+arr (\ x -> (x+1, x)) >>>
+ first f >>>
+ arr (\ (y, x) -> (2*y, (x, y))) >>>
+ first g >>>
+ arr (\ (_, (x, y)) -> let z = x+y in (x*z, z)) >>>
+ first h >>>
+ arr (\ (t, z) -> t+z)
+</screen>
+which is what you might have written by hand.
+With arrow notation, GHC keeps track of all those tuples of variables for you.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Note that although the above translation suggests that
+<literal>let</literal>-bound variables like <literal>z</literal> must be
+monomorphic, the actual translation produces Core,
+so polymorphic variables are allowed.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+It's also possible to have mutually recursive bindings,
+using the new <literal>rec</literal> keyword, as in the following example:
+<screen>
+counter :: ArrowCircuit a => a Bool Int
+counter = proc reset -> do
+ rec output <- returnA -< if reset then 0 else next
+ next <- delay 0 -< output+1
+ returnA -< output
+</screen>
+The translation of such forms uses the <literal>loop</literal> combinator,
+so the arrow concerned must belong to the <literal>ArrowLoop</literal> class.
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>Conditional commands</title>
+
+<para>
+In the previous example, we used a conditional expression to construct the
+input for an arrow.
+Sometimes we want to conditionally execute different commands, as in
+<screen>
+proc (x,y) ->
+ if f x y
+ then g -< x+1
+ else h -< y+2
+</screen>
+which is translated to
+<screen>
+arr (\ (x,y) -> if f x y then Left x else Right y) >>>
+ (arr (\x -> x+1) >>> f) ||| (arr (\y -> y+2) >>> g)
+</screen>
+Since the translation uses <literal>|||</literal>,
+the arrow concerned must belong to the <literal>ArrowChoice</literal> class.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+There are also <literal>case</literal> commands, like
+<screen>
+case input of
+ [] -> f -< ()
+ [x] -> g -< x+1
+ x1:x2:xs -> do
+ y <- h -< (x1, x2)
+ ys <- k -< xs
+ returnA -< y:ys
+</screen>
+The syntax is the same as for <literal>case</literal> expressions,
+except that the bodies of the alternatives are commands rather than expressions.
+The translation is similar to that of <literal>if</literal> commands.
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>Defining your own control structures</title>
+
+<para>
+As we're seen, arrow notation provides constructs,
+modelled on those for expressions,
+for sequencing, value recursion and conditionals.
+But suitable combinators,
+which you can define in ordinary Haskell,
+may also be used to build new commands out of existing ones.
+The basic idea is that a command defines an arrow from environments to values.
+These environments assign values to the free local variables of the command.
+Thus combinators that produce arrows from arrows
+may also be used to build commands from commands.
+For example, the <literal>ArrowChoice</literal> class includes a combinator
+<programlisting>
+ArrowChoice a => (<+>) :: a e c -> a e c -> a e c
+</programlisting>
+so we can use it to build commands:
+<programlisting>
+expr' = proc x ->
+ returnA -< x
+ <+> do
+ symbol Plus -< ()
+ y <- term -< ()
+ expr' -< x + y
+ <+> do
+ symbol Minus -< ()
+ y <- term -< ()
+ expr' -< x - y
+</programlisting>
+This is equivalent to
+<programlisting>
+expr' = (proc x -> returnA -< x)
+ <+> (proc x -> do
+ symbol Plus -< ()
+ y <- term -< ()
+ expr' -< x + y)
+ <+> (proc x -> do
+ symbol Minus -< ()
+ y <- term -< ()
+ expr' -< x - y)
+</programlisting>
+It is essential that this operator be polymorphic in <literal>e</literal>
+(representing the environment input to the command
+and thence to its subcommands)
+and satisfy the corresponding naturality property
+<screen>
+arr k >>> (f <+> g) = (arr k >>> f) <+> (arr k >>> g)
+</screen>
+at least for strict <literal>k</literal>.
+(This should be automatic if you're not using <literal>seq</literal>.)
+This ensures that environments seen by the subcommands are environments
+of the whole command,
+and also allows the translation to safely trim these environments.
+The operator must also not use any variable defined within the current
+arrow abstraction.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+We could define our own operator
+<programlisting>
+untilA :: ArrowChoice a => a e () -> a e Bool -> a e ()
+untilA body cond = proc x ->
+ if cond x then returnA -< ()
+ else do
+ body -< x
+ untilA body cond -< x
+</programlisting>
+and use it in the same way.
+Of course this infix syntax only makes sense for binary operators;
+there is also a more general syntax involving special brackets:
+<screen>
+proc x -> do
+ y <- f -< x+1
+ (|untilA (increment -< x+y) (within 0.5 -< x)|)
+</screen>
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>Primitive constructs</title>
+
+<para>
+Some operators will need to pass additional inputs to their subcommands.
+For example, in an arrow type supporting exceptions,
+the operator that attaches an exception handler will wish to pass the
+exception that occurred to the handler.
+Such an operator might have a type
+<screen>
+handleA :: ... => a e c -> a (e,Ex) c -> a e c
+</screen>
+where <literal>Ex</literal> is the type of exceptions handled.
+You could then use this with arrow notation by writing a command
+<screen>
+body `handleA` \ ex -> handler
+</screen>
+so that if an exception is raised in the command <literal>body</literal>,
+the variable <literal>ex</literal> is bound to the value of the exception
+and the command <literal>handler</literal>,
+which typically refers to <literal>ex</literal>, is entered.
+Though the syntax here looks like a functional lambda,
+we are talking about commands, and something different is going on.
+The input to the arrow represented by a command consists of values for
+the free local variables in the command, plus a stack of anonymous values.
+In all the prior examples, this stack was empty.
+In the second argument to <literal>handleA</literal>,
+this stack consists of one value, the value of the exception.
+The command form of lambda merely gives this value a name.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+More concretely,
+the values on the stack are paired to the right of the environment.
+So when designing operators like <literal>handleA</literal> that pass
+extra inputs to their subcommands,
+More precisely, the type of each argument of the operator (and its result)
+should have the form
+<screen>
+a (...(e,t1), ... tn) t
+</screen>
+where <replaceable>e</replaceable> is a polymorphic variable
+(representing the environment)
+and <replaceable>ti</replaceable> are the types of the values on the stack,
+with <replaceable>t1</replaceable> being the <quote>top</quote>.
+The polymorphic variable <replaceable>e</replaceable> must not occur in
+<replaceable>a</replaceable>, <replaceable>ti</replaceable> or
+<replaceable>t</replaceable>.
+However the arrows involved need not be the same.
+Here are some more examples of suitable operators:
+<screen>
+bracketA :: ... => a e b -> a (e,b) c -> a (e,c) d -> a e d
+runReader :: ... => a e c -> a' (e,State) c
+runState :: ... => a e c -> a' (e,State) (c,State)
+</screen>
+We can supply the extra input required by commands built with the last two
+by applying them to ordinary expressions, as in
+<screen>
+proc x -> do
+ s <- ...
+ (|runReader (do { ... })|) s
+</screen>
+which adds <literal>s</literal> to the stack of inputs to the command
+built using <literal>runReader</literal>.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The command versions of lambda abstraction and application are analogous to
+the expression versions.
+In particular, the beta and eta rules describe equivalences of commands.
+These three features (operators, lambda abstraction and application)
+are the core of the notation; everything else can be built using them,
+though the results would be somewhat clumsy.
+For example, we could simulate <literal>do</literal>-notation by defining
+<programlisting>
+bind :: Arrow a => a e b -> a (e,b) c -> a e c
+u `bind` f = returnA &&& u >>> f
+
+bind_ :: Arrow a => a e b -> a e c -> a e c
+u `bind_` f = u `bind` (arr fst >>> f)
+</programlisting>
+We could simulate <literal>do</literal> by defining
+<programlisting>
+cond :: ArrowChoice a => a e b -> a e b -> a (e,Bool) b
+cond f g = arr (\ (e,b) -> if b then Left e else Right e) >>> f ||| g
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>Differences with the paper</title>
+
+<itemizedlist>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>Instead of a single form of arrow application (arrow tail) with two
+translations, the implementation provides two forms
+<quote><literal>-<</literal></quote> (first-order)
+and <quote><literal>-<<</literal></quote> (higher-order).
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>User-defined operators are flagged with banana brackets instead of
+a new <literal>form</literal> keyword.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+</itemizedlist>
+
+</sect2>
+
+<sect2>
+<title>Portability</title>
+
+<para>
+Although only GHC implements arrow notation directly,
+there is also a preprocessor
+(available from the
+<ulink url="http://www.haskell.org/arrows/">arrows web page></ulink>)
+that translates arrow notation into Haskell 98
+for use with other Haskell systems.
+You would still want to check arrow programs with GHC;
+tracing type errors in the preprocessor output is not easy.
+Modules intended for both GHC and the preprocessor must observe some
+additional restrictions:
+<itemizedlist>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+The module must import
+<ulink url="../base/Control.Arrow.html"><literal>Control.Arrow</literal></ulink>.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+The preprocessor cannot cope with other Haskell extensions.
+These would have to go in separate modules.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+<listitem>
+<para>
+Because the preprocessor targets Haskell (rather than Core),
+<literal>let</literal>-bound variables are monomorphic.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+
+</sect2>
+
+</sect1>
+
<!-- ==================== ASSERTIONS ================= -->
<sect1 id="sec-assertions">
unrecognised <replaceable>word</replaceable> is (silently)
ignored.</para>
-<sect2 id="inline-pragma">
-<title>INLINE pragma
+ <sect2 id="deprecated-pragma">
+ <title>DEPRECATED pragma</title>
+ <indexterm><primary>DEPRECATED</primary>
+ </indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>pragma, INLINE</primary></indexterm></title>
+ <para>The DEPRECATED pragma lets you specify that a particular
+ function, class, or type, is deprecated. There are two
+ forms.</para>
-<para>
-GHC (with <option>-O</option>, as always) tries to inline (or “unfold”)
-functions/values that are “small enough,” thus avoiding the call
-overhead and possibly exposing other more-wonderful optimisations.
-Normally, if GHC decides a function is “too expensive” to inline, it
-will not do so, nor will it export that unfolding for other modules to
-use.
-</para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can deprecate an entire module thus:</para>
+<programlisting>
+ module Wibble {-# DEPRECATED "Use Wobble instead" #-} where
+ ...
+</programlisting>
+ <para>When you compile any module that import
+ <literal>Wibble</literal>, GHC will print the specified
+ message.</para>
+ </listitem>
-<para>
-The sledgehammer you can bring to bear is the
-<literal>INLINE</literal><indexterm><primary>INLINE pragma</primary></indexterm> pragma, used thusly:
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can deprecate a function, class, or type, with the
+ following top-level declaration:</para>
+<programlisting>
+ {-# DEPRECATED f, C, T "Don't use these" #-}
+</programlisting>
+ <para>When you compile any module that imports and uses any
+ of the specifed entities, GHC will print the specified
+ message.</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+
+ <para>You can suppress the warnings with the flag
+ <option>-fno-warn-deprecations</option>.</para>
+ </sect2>
+
+ <sect2 id="inline-noinline-pragma">
+ <title>INLINE and NOINLINE pragmas</title>
+
+ <para>These pragmas control the inlining of function
+ definitions.</para>
+
+ <sect3 id="inline-pragma">
+ <title>INLINE pragma</title>
+ <indexterm><primary>INLINE</primary></indexterm>
+
+ <para>GHC (with <option>-O</option>, as always) tries to
+ inline (or “unfold”) functions/values that are
+ “small enough,” thus avoiding the call overhead
+ and possibly exposing other more-wonderful optimisations.
+ Normally, if GHC decides a function is “too
+ expensive” to inline, it will not do so, nor will it
+ export that unfolding for other modules to use.</para>
+
+ <para>The sledgehammer you can bring to bear is the
+ <literal>INLINE</literal><indexterm><primary>INLINE
+ pragma</primary></indexterm> pragma, used thusly:</para>
<programlisting>
key_function :: Int -> String -> (Bool, Double)
{-# INLINE key_function #-}
#endif
</programlisting>
-(You don't need to do the C pre-processor carry-on unless you're going
-to stick the code through HBC—it doesn't like <literal>INLINE</literal> pragmas.)
-</para>
-<para>
-The major effect of an <literal>INLINE</literal> pragma is to declare a function's
-“cost” to be very low. The normal unfolding machinery will then be
-very keen to inline it.
-</para>
+ <para>(You don't need to do the C pre-processor carry-on
+ unless you're going to stick the code through HBC—it
+ doesn't like <literal>INLINE</literal> pragmas.)</para>
-<para>
-Syntactially, an <literal>INLINE</literal> pragma for a function can be put anywhere its type
-signature could be put.
-</para>
+ <para>The major effect of an <literal>INLINE</literal> pragma
+ is to declare a function's “cost” to be very low.
+ The normal unfolding machinery will then be very keen to
+ inline it.</para>
-<para>
-<literal>INLINE</literal> pragmas are a particularly good idea for the
-<literal>then</literal>/<literal>return</literal> (or <literal>bind</literal>/<literal>unit</literal>) functions in a monad.
-For example, in GHC's own <literal>UniqueSupply</literal> monad code, we have:
+ <para>Syntactially, an <literal>INLINE</literal> pragma for a
+ function can be put anywhere its type signature could be
+ put.</para>
+
+ <para><literal>INLINE</literal> pragmas are a particularly
+ good idea for the
+ <literal>then</literal>/<literal>return</literal> (or
+ <literal>bind</literal>/<literal>unit</literal>) functions in
+ a monad. For example, in GHC's own
+ <literal>UniqueSupply</literal> monad code, we have:</para>
<programlisting>
#ifdef __GLASGOW_HASKELL__
#endif
</programlisting>
-</para>
+ <para>See also the <literal>NOINLINE</literal> pragma (<xref
+ linkend="noinline-pragma">).</para>
+ </sect3>
+
+ <sect3 id="noinline-pragma">
+ <title>NOINLINE pragma</title>
+
+ <indexterm><primary>NOINLINE</primary></indexterm>
+ <indexterm><primary>NOTINLINE</primary></indexterm>
+
+ <para>The <literal>NOINLINE</literal> pragma does exactly what
+ you'd expect: it stops the named function from being inlined
+ by the compiler. You shouldn't ever need to do this, unless
+ you're very cautious about code size.</para>
+
+ <para><literal>NOTINLINE</literal> is a synonym for
+ <literal>NOINLINE</literal> (<literal>NOTINLINE</literal> is
+ specified by Haskell 98 as the standard way to disable
+ inlining, so it should be used if you want your code to be
+ portable).</para>
+ </sect3>
+
+ <sect3 id="phase-control">
+ <title>Phase control</title>
+
+ <para> Sometimes you want to control exactly when in GHC's
+ pipeline the INLINE pragma is switched on. Inlining happens
+ only during runs of the <emphasis>simplifier</emphasis>. Each
+ run of the simplifier has a different <emphasis>phase
+ number</emphasis>; the phase number decreases towards zero.
+ If you use <option>-dverbose-core2core</option> you'll see the
+ sequence of phase numbers for successive runs of the
+ simpifier. In an INLINE pragma you can optionally specify a
+ phase number, thus:</para>
-<sect3 id="noinline-pragma">
-<title>The NOINLINE pragma </title>
-
-<indexterm><primary>NOINLINE pragma</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>pragma</primary><secondary>NOINLINE</secondary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>NOTINLINE pragma</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>pragma</primary><secondary>NOTINLINE</secondary></indexterm>
-
-<para>
-The <literal>NOINLINE</literal> pragma does exactly what you'd expect:
-it stops the named function from being inlined by the compiler. You
-shouldn't ever need to do this, unless you're very cautious about code
-size.
-</para>
-
-<para><literal>NOTINLINE</literal> is a synonym for
-<literal>NOINLINE</literal> (<literal>NOTINLINE</literal> is specified
-by Haskell 98 as the standard way to disable inlining, so it should be
-used if you want your code to be portable).</para>
-</sect3>
-
-
-<sect3 id="phase-control">
-<title>Phase control</title>
-
-<para> Sometimes you want to control exactly when in GHC's pipeline
-the INLINE pragma is switched on. Inlining happens only during runs of
-the <emphasis>simplifier</emphasis>. Each run of the simplifier has a different
-<emphasis>phase number</emphasis>; the phase number decreases towards zero.
-If you use <option>-dverbose-core2core</option>
-you'll see the sequence of phase numbers for successive runs of the simpifier.
-In an INLINE pragma you can optionally specify a phase number, thus:
-<itemizedlist>
-<listitem> <para>You can say "inline <literal>f</literal> in Phase 2 and all subsequent
-phases":
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can say "inline <literal>f</literal> in Phase 2
+ and all subsequent phases":
<programlisting>
{-# INLINE [2] f #-}
</programlisting>
-</para></listitem>
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
-<listitem> <para>You can say "inline <literal>g</literal> in all phases up to, but
-not including, Phase 3":
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can say "inline <literal>g</literal> in all
+ phases up to, but not including, Phase 3":
<programlisting>
{-# INLINE [~3] g #-}
</programlisting>
-</para></listitem>
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
-<listitem> <para>If you omit the phase indicator, you mean "inline in all phases".
-</para></listitem>
-</itemizedlist>
-You can use a phase number on a NOINLINE pragma too:
-<itemizedlist>
-<listitem> <para>You can say "do not inline <literal>f</literal> until Phase 2; in
-Phase 2 and subsequently behave as if there was no pragma at all":
+ <listitem>
+ <para>If you omit the phase indicator, you mean "inline in
+ all phases".</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+
+ <para>You can use a phase number on a NOINLINE pragma too:</para>
+
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can say "do not inline <literal>f</literal>
+ until Phase 2; in Phase 2 and subsequently behave as if
+ there was no pragma at all":
<programlisting>
{-# NOINLINE [2] f #-}
</programlisting>
-</para></listitem>
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
-<listitem> <para>You can say "do not inline <literal>g</literal> in Phase 3 or any subsequent phase;
-before that, behave as if there was no pragma":
+ <listitem>
+ <para>You can say "do not inline <literal>g</literal> in
+ Phase 3 or any subsequent phase; before that, behave as if
+ there was no pragma":
<programlisting>
{-# NOINLINE [~3] g #-}
</programlisting>
-</para></listitem>
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
-<listitem> <para>If you omit the phase indicator, you mean "never inline this function".
-</para></listitem>
-</itemizedlist>
-</para>
-<para>The same phase-numbering control is available for RULES (<xref LinkEnd="rewrite-rules">).</para>
-</sect3>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>If you omit the phase indicator, you mean "never
+ inline this function".</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+ <para>The same phase-numbering control is available for RULES
+ (<xref LinkEnd="rewrite-rules">).</para>
+ </sect3>
+ </sect2>
+ <sect2 id="line-pragma">
+ <title>LINE pragma</title>
-</sect2>
+ <indexterm><primary>LINE</primary><secondary>pragma</secondary></indexterm>
+ <indexterm><primary>pragma</primary><secondary>LINE</secondary></indexterm>
+ <para>This pragma is similar to C's <literal>#line</literal>
+ pragma, and is mainly for use in automatically generated Haskell
+ code. It lets you specify the line number and filename of the
+ original code; for example</para>
+
+<programlisting>
+{-# LINE 42 "Foo.vhs" #-}
+</programlisting>
-<sect2 id="rules">
-<title>RULES pragma</title>
+ <para>if you'd generated the current file from something called
+ <filename>Foo.vhs</filename> and this line corresponds to line
+ 42 in the original. GHC will adjust its error messages to refer
+ to the line/file named in the <literal>LINE</literal>
+ pragma.</para>
+ </sect2>
-<para>
-The RULES pragma lets you specify rewrite rules. It is described in
-<xref LinkEnd="rewrite-rules">.
-</para>
+ <sect2 id="options-pragma">
+ <title>OPTIONS pragma</title>
+ <indexterm><primary>OPTIONS</primary>
+ </indexterm>
+ <indexterm><primary>pragma</primary><secondary>OPTIONS</secondary>
+ </indexterm>
+
+ <para>The <literal>OPTIONS</literal> pragma is used to specify
+ additional options that are given to the compiler when compiling
+ this source file. See <xref linkend="source-file-options"> for
+ details.</para>
+ </sect2>
-</sect2>
+ <sect2 id="rules">
+ <title>RULES pragma</title>
+ <para>The RULES pragma lets you specify rewrite rules. It is
+ described in <xref LinkEnd="rewrite-rules">.</para>
+ </sect2>
<sect2 id="specialize-pragma">
<title>SPECIALIZE pragma</title>
<para>A <literal>SPECIALIZE</literal> pragma for a function can
be put anywhere its type signature could be put.</para>
- <para>To get very fancy, you can also specify a named function
- to use for the specialised value, as in:</para>
-
+<para>A <literal>SPECIALIZE</literal> has the effect of generating (a) a specialised
+version of the function and (b) a rewrite rule (see <xref linkend="rules">) that
+rewrites a call to the un-specialised function into a call to the specialised
+one. You can, instead, provide your own specialised function and your own rewrite rule.
+For example, suppose that:
<programlisting>
-{-# RULES "hammeredLookup" hammeredLookup = blah #-}
+ genericLookup :: Ord a => Table a b -> a -> b
+ intLookup :: Table Int b -> Int -> b
</programlisting>
-
- <para>where <literal>blah</literal> is an implementation of
- <literal>hammerdLookup</literal> written specialy for
- <literal>Widget</literal> lookups. It's <emphasis>Your
+where <literal>intLookup</literal> is an implementation of <literal>genericLookup</literal>
+that works very fast for keys of type <literal>Int</literal>. Then you can write the rule
+<programlisting>
+ {-# RULES "intLookup" genericLookup = intLookup #-}
+</programlisting>
+(see <xref linkend="rule-spec">). It is <emphasis>Your
Responsibility</emphasis> to make sure that
- <function>blah</function> really behaves as a specialised
- version of <function>hammeredLookup</function>!!!</para>
-
- <para>Note we use the <literal>RULE</literal> pragma here to
- indicate that <literal>hammeredLookup</literal> applied at a
- certain type should be replaced by <literal>blah</literal>. See
- <xref linkend="rules"> for more information on
- <literal>RULES</literal>.</para>
+ <function>intLookup</function> really behaves as a specialised
+ version of <function>genericLookup</function>!!!</para>
<para>An example in which using <literal>RULES</literal> for
specialisation will Win Big:
<programlisting>
-toDouble :: Real a => a -> Double
-toDouble = fromRational . toRational
+ toDouble :: Real a => a -> Double
+ toDouble = fromRational . toRational
-{-# RULES "toDouble/Int" toDouble = i2d #-}
-i2d (I# i) = D# (int2Double# i) -- uses Glasgow prim-op directly
+ {-# RULES "toDouble/Int" toDouble = i2d #-}
+ i2d (I# i) = D# (int2Double# i) -- uses Glasgow prim-op directly
</programlisting>
The <function>i2d</function> function is virtually one machine
</sect2>
-<sect2 id="line-pragma">
-<title>LINE pragma
-</title>
-
-<para>
-<indexterm><primary>LINE pragma</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>pragma, LINE</primary></indexterm>
-</para>
-
-<para>
-This pragma is similar to C's <literal>#line</literal> pragma, and is mainly for use in
-automatically generated Haskell code. It lets you specify the line
-number and filename of the original code; for example
-</para>
-
-<para>
-
-<programlisting>
-{-# LINE 42 "Foo.vhs" #-}
-</programlisting>
-
-</para>
-
-<para>
-if you'd generated the current file from something called <filename>Foo.vhs</filename>
-and this line corresponds to line 42 in the original. GHC will adjust
-its error messages to refer to the line/file named in the <literal>LINE</literal>
-pragma.
-</para>
-
-</sect2>
-
-<sect2 id="deprecated-pragma">
-<title>DEPRECATED pragma</title>
-<para>
-The DEPRECATED pragma lets you specify that a particular function, class, or type, is deprecated.
-There are two forms.
-</para>
-<itemizedlist>
-<listitem><para>
-You can deprecate an entire module thus:</para>
-<programlisting>
- module Wibble {-# DEPRECATED "Use Wobble instead" #-} where
- ...
-</programlisting>
-<para>
-When you compile any module that import <literal>Wibble</literal>, GHC will print
-the specified message.</para>
-</listitem>
-
-<listitem>
-<para>
-You can deprecate a function, class, or type, with the following top-level declaration:
-</para>
-<programlisting>
- {-# DEPRECATED f, C, T "Don't use these" #-}
-</programlisting>
-<para>
-When you compile any module that imports and uses any of the specifed entities,
-GHC will print the specified message.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-</itemizedlist>
-<para>You can suppress the warnings with the flag <option>-fno-warn-deprecations</option>.</para>
-
-</sect2>
</sect1>
<para>
The programmer can specify rewrite rules as part of the source program
-(in a pragma). GHC applies these rewrite rules wherever it can.
+(in a pragma). GHC applies these rewrite rules wherever it can, provided (a)
+the <option>-O</option> flag (<xref LinkEnd="options-optimise">) is on,
+and (b) the <option>-frules-off</option> flag
+(<xref LinkEnd="options-f">) is not specified.
</para>
<para>
</para>
-<para>
+ <para>
So, for example, the following should generate no intermediate lists:
<programlisting>
<listitem>
<para>
- The defintion of (say) <function>build</function> in <FileName>PrelBase.lhs</FileName> looks llike this:
+ The defintion of (say) <function>build</function> in <FileName>GHC/Base.lhs</FileName> looks llike this:
<programlisting>
build :: forall a. (forall b. (a -> b -> b) -> b -> b) -> [a]
<listitem>
<para>
- In <filename>ghc/lib/std/PrelBase.lhs</filename> look at the rules for <function>map</function> to
+ In <filename>libraries/base/GHC/Base.lhs</filename> look at the rules for <function>map</function> to
see how to write rules that will do fusion and yet give an efficient
-program even if fusion doesn't happen. More rules in <filename>PrelList.lhs</filename>.
+program even if fusion doesn't happen. More rules in <filename>GHC/List.lhs</filename>.
</para>
</listitem>
instance (Bin a, Bin b) => Bin (a,b)
instance Bin a => Bin [a]
</programlisting>
-That is, just leave off the "where" clasuse. Of course, you can put in the
+That is, just leave off the "where" clause. Of course, you can put in the
where clause and over-ride whichever methods you please.
</para>
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / blobdiff