Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit b43b6b0c authored by Alan Zimmerman's avatar Alan Zimmerman
Browse files

Refactor ConDecl

Summary:
The ConDecl type in HsDecls is an uneasy compromise. For the most part,
HsSyn directly reflects the syntax written by the programmer; and that
gives just the right "pegs" on which to hang Alan's API annotations. But
ConDecl doesn't properly reflect the syntax of Haskell-98 and GADT-style
data type declarations.

To be concrete, here's a draft new data type

data ConDecl name
  | ConDeclGADT
      { con_names   :: [Located name]
      , con_type    :: LHsSigType name  -- The type after the ‘::’
      , con_doc     :: Maybe LHsDocString }

  | ConDeclH98
      { con_name    :: Located name

      , con_qvars     :: Maybe (LHsQTyVars name)
        -- User-written forall (if any), and its implicit
        -- kind variables
        -- Non-Nothing needs -XExistentialQuantification

      , con_cxt       :: Maybe (LHsContext name)
        -- ^ User-written context (if any)

      , con_details   :: HsConDeclDetails name
          -- ^ Arguments

      , con_doc       :: Maybe LHsDocString
          -- ^ A possible Haddock comment.
      } deriving (Typeable)

Note that

    For GADTs, just keep a type. That's what the user writes.
    NB:HsType can represent records on the LHS of an arrow:

      { x:Int,y:Bool} -> T

    con_qvars and con_cxt are both Maybe because they are both
    optional (the forall and the context of an existential data type

    For ConDeclGADT the type variables of the data type do not scope
    over the con_type; whereas for ConDeclH98 they do scope over con_cxt
    and con_details.

Test Plan: ./validate

Reviewers: simonpj, austin, goldfire, bgamari

Subscribers: goldfire, thomie, mpickering

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D1558

GHC Trac Issues: #11028
parent 13ab2c64
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Showing
with 426 additions and 339 deletions
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment