Changes between Version 16 and Version 17 of TypeFunctionsTypeChecking

Aug 16, 2006 6:03:15 PM (11 years ago)



  • TypeFunctionsTypeChecking

    v16 v17  
    1919Instances of indexed types are type checked by `TcTyClDecls.tcIdxTyInstDecl`; i.e., the same functions that performs their kind checking.  Kind checking and type checking of instances of indexed types can be combined, as we don't need to worry as much about recursive dependencies as we have to for standard type declarations.  In particular, the kinds of indexed types are declared by their signature and we don't have to compute any recursiveness information, as we never know whether we reached a fixed point for open types.  (Hence, we conservatively assume indexed types to be always `Recursive`.  This is safe as they are implicit loop breakers due to to implying coercions.)
    21 === Representation of indexed families after type checking ===
     21== Representation of indexed families after type checking ==
    2323The function `TcTyClsDecls.tcTyClsDecls` produces `TypeRep.TyThing`s from type and class declarations.  The `TyThing`s produced from the new declaration forms are the following:
    2727   Data and newtype families are represented by the `TyCon` variant `AlgTyCon`, as are their non-indexed counter parts, with the difference that the field `algTcRhs` has the one of the newly introduced values `OpenDataTyCon` or `OpenNewTyCon`.
    29 ==== Synonym type constructors: `SynTyCon` ====
     29=== Synonym type constructors: `SynTyCon` ===
    3131To represent type families (which do not have a fixed right hand side), the type of `synTcRhs` changed from `Type` to `SynTyConRhs` with
    3636Consequently, all functions that dependent on this field need to be extended.  In particular, `TcType.isTauTyCon` regards applications of type family constructors as ''tau types'', which is why we need to require that the right hand side of each `type instance` declaration is also a tau type.  As a result, `BuildTyCls.buildSynTyCon`'s last argument now also takes a value of type `SynTyConRhs`.
    38 ==== GHC API ====
     38=== GHC API ===
    4040The GHC API has a new predicate `isOpenTyCon` with the understanding that it is illegal to invoke `synTyConDefn`, `synTyConRhs`, and `tyConDataCons` on type constructors that fulfil `isOpenTyCon`.
    42 === Desugaring indexed data types ===
     42== Representation of type equation axioms ==
    44 The kind signature of an indexed data type
    45 {{{
    46 data T (a1::<kind1>) .. (an::<kindn>) :: <kind>
    47 }}}
    48 turns into an F,,C,, type function declaration
    49 {{{
    50 type T_n : <kind1> -> .. -> <kindn> -> <kind>
    51 }}}
    52 A member of an indexed data type
    53 {{{
    54 data T t1 .. tn b1 .. bm = <constructors>
    55 }}}
    56 turns into an equality axiom and a vanilla data declaration
    57 {{{
    58 axiom cTinst : (forall T_n t1 .. tn) :=: (forall Tinst c1 .. cr)
    59 data Tinst c1 .. cr b1 .. bm = <constructors>
    60 }}}
    61 where the `ci` are the free variables of the `tj`.  Moreover, we morally replace all occurences of `T` in the rest of the program by `T_n`.  No such replacement is required in the actual implementation as the arity index at F,,C,, type functions is just a formal device used in the formal development.  In the implementation, it is perfectly fine to retain the original name and maintain the arity information separately.
     44Type functions have a number of properties in common with class instances; in particular, they require a machinery for matching type patterns against types, as instance heads do during context simplification.  Hence, we probably want some structure similar to `InstEnv.Instance` for type functions - for instances this is maintained in the field `iSpec` of `TcEnv.InstInfo` (for type functions we don't need anything like `iBinds` as they are pure type-level entities).  If possible, it would be ideal if we can reuse (or generalise) some of the matching machinery for instance heads.
    63 Neverthless, we need to generate a new name for the vanilla data types representing family members (i.e., `Tinst` above).  We use a similar mechanism as for the generation of the dictionary type constructors of type classes.  In particular, we generalise the field `algTcClass` of the internal representation for datatypes, `TyCon.AlgTyCon`, to be three valued: none, `Class` for data types representing dictionaries, and <which structure?> for data types representing members of a family.
     46The essentials of a module after type checking are in `HscTypes.ModGuts`; in particular, we have two fields `mg_insts :: [Instance]` and `mg_binds :: [CoreRule]` containing all instance heads and all rewrite rules respectively.  Similarly, we now want something like `mg_tyequa :: [TyEqua]` to represent all type equations.
    65 === Inserting coercions ===
    67 To ensure that the F,,C,, code generated by the above desugaring still type checks, we need to introduce cast expressions using `cTinst` to move between the indexed type `T_n` and the representation types, such as `Tinst`, of its members.  The simplicity of type checking and desugaring indexed data types - as opposed to general type functions - is due to the locations where these casts need to be added being well defined.  More precisely, there are two different kinds of locations corresponding to the introduction and elimination of indexed data types:
    68  1. Wrappers for data constructors introduce indexed types.
    69  2. Case expressions scrutinising indexed types eliminate them.
    71 === Wrappers for indexed data types ===
    73 The wrapper of a data constructor acts as an impedance matcher between the source-level signatures of the constructor and its actual representation; in particular, it evaluates strict arguments and unboxes flattened arguments.  In the case of a constructor for an indexed data type, it additionally has to apply the coercion between the type function representing the source type and its representation as a vanilla data type.  So, for example, if we have (continuing the example from above)
    74 {{{
    75 data T t1 .. tn b1 .. bm = C s1 .. sk
    76 }}}
    77 then we generate a wrapper
    78 {{{
    79 C = /\ ->
    80     \x1..xk ->
    81       Con C [c1,..,cr,b1,..,bm] [x1,..,xk] |> sym (cTinst@c1..@cr b1 .. bm)
    82 }}}
    83 The generation of constructor wrappers is performed by `MkId.mkDataConIds`.
    85 === Case expressions for indexed data types ===
    87 When we scrutinise an indexed type in a case expression, we need to first cast it to the vanilla data type representing the family member from which the constructors guarding the alternatives are drawn.  (This implies that we cannot have any case expression mixing constructors from two or more family members.  In fact, if we had that capability, we would have open GADT definitions in the Löh/Hinze sense.)
    89 So, whether we need to cast the scrutinee of a case expression depends on the constructors appearing in the alternatives, which are type checked by `TcPat.tcConPat`.  This function uses `TcUnify.boxySplitTyConApp` to match the type of the scrutinee against the result type of the data constructor.  In the case of GADTs and indexed types, this is not just a matter of extracting the arguments from the type constructor application, but we need to match against type patterns.  This matching is already conveniently performed by the code for GADTs.
    91 If the data constructor is from an indexed type, we need to propagate a coercion (to be applied to the scrutinee) outwards.  For this, GHC also already has a mechanism, namely the variant `CoPat` of `HsPat.Pat`.  It enables us to attach a coercion function, of type `HsBinds.ExprCoFun`, to a pattern, which the desugarer will pick up in `Match.matchCoercion` and apply to the match variable of the case expression.
    93 `ExprCoFun` represents, besides coercions due to type instantiation, also type equality coercions of type `Coercion.Coercion`.  We use them for coercions that are exactly the converse of the coercion used in the wrapper of the data constructor of the current case alternative.  (There is also an equivalent of `CoPat` for expressions, namely `HsCoerce` of `HsExpr.HsExpr`.)
     48Refined idea: Instead of duplicating the `InstInfo`/`Instance` infrastructure for instances of indexed types, we could just add a second variant to `InstInfo`.  This has the advantage that functions, such as `tcInstDecls1`, still only have to return a list of `InstInfo` and not two different lists.