{-# complete #-} should be able to handle | like {-# minimal #-}

It'd be really convenient to be able to specify these like we can with minimal pragmas, mixing ands and ors. I wind up with a combinatorial explosion of such annotations for the cases where it works when I have large numbers of patterns.

I have at least one use case where something that would be a trivial pattern to express with one (complicated) expression involving | becomes 64 lines of complete pragmas, and every time I extend it this count doubles.

Consider what happens if you add a mix of actual and smart views of a data type:

{-# language ViewPatterns, PatternSynonyms, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}

newtype Delta = Delta Int deriving (Eq,Num)

instance Monoid Delta where
  mempty = 0
  mappend = (+)

data Exp = Var !Int | AP !Delta !Exp !Exp | LAM !Delta !Exp

rel 0 xs = xs
rel d (AP d' l r) = AP (d + d') l r
rel d (LAM d' b) = LAM (d + d') b
rel _ (Var n) = Var n

pattern Ap a b <- AP d (rel d -> a) (rel d -> b) where
  Ap a b = AP 0 a b

pattern Lam b <- LAM d (rel d -> b) where
  Lam b = LAM 0 b

{-# complete Var, AP, Lam #-}
{-# complete Var, Ap, LAM #-}
{-# complete Var, AP, LAM #-}

Every data constructor I add with a smart view adds to the powerset of complete pragmas I should supply.

On the other hand with | patterns:

{-# complete Var, (Ap | AP), (Lam | LAM) #-}

extends linearly.

Trac metadata

Trac field	Value
Version	8.2.1
Type	FeatureRequest
TypeOfFailure	OtherFailure
Priority	normal
Resolution	Unresolved
Component	Compiler (Type checker)
Test case
Differential revisions
BlockedBy
Related
Blocking
CC
Operating system
Architecture