TcSimplify.lhs 88.1 KB
Newer Older
1
%
2
% (c) The University of Glasgow 2006
3
% (c) The GRASP/AQUA Project, Glasgow University, 1992-1998
4
%
5

6
TcSimplify
7
8

\begin{code}
9
module TcSimplify (
10
	tcSimplifyInfer, tcSimplifyInferCheck,
11
	tcSimplifyCheck, tcSimplifyRestricted,
12
	tcSimplifyRuleLhs, tcSimplifyIPs, 
13
	tcSimplifySuperClasses,
14
	tcSimplifyTop, tcSimplifyInteractive,
15
	tcSimplifyBracket, tcSimplifyCheckPat,
16

17
	tcSimplifyDeriv, tcSimplifyDefault,
18
	bindInstsOfLocalFuns
19
20
    ) where

21
#include "HsVersions.h"
22

23
import {-# SOURCE #-} TcUnify( unifyType )
24
import HsSyn
25

26
import TcRnMonad
27
28
29
import Inst
import TcEnv
import InstEnv
30
import TcGadt
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
import TcMType
import TcType
import TcIface
import Var
import TyCon
import Name
import NameSet
import Class
import FunDeps
import PrelInfo
import PrelNames
import Type
import TysWiredIn
import ErrUtils
import BasicTypes
46
import VarSet
47
import VarEnv
48
import FiniteMap
49
import Bag
50
import Outputable
51
52
53
54
55
56
import ListSetOps
import Util
import SrcLoc
import DynFlags

import Data.List
57
58
59
60
61
\end{code}


%************************************************************************
%*									*
62
\subsection{NOTES}
63
64
65
%*									*
%************************************************************************

66
67
68
69
	--------------------------------------
	Notes on functional dependencies (a bug)
	--------------------------------------

simonpj@microsoft.com's avatar
simonpj@microsoft.com committed
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Consider this:

	class C a b | a -> b
	class D a b | a -> b

	instance D a b => C a b	-- Undecidable 
				-- (Not sure if it's crucial to this eg)
	f :: C a b => a -> Bool
	f _ = True
	
	g :: C a b => a -> Bool
	g = f

Here f typechecks, but g does not!!  Reason: before doing improvement,
we reduce the (C a b1) constraint from the call of f to (D a b1).

Here is a more complicated example:

88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
| > class Foo a b | a->b
| >
| > class Bar a b | a->b
| >
| > data Obj = Obj
| >
| > instance Bar Obj Obj
| >
| > instance (Bar a b) => Foo a b
| >
| > foo:: (Foo a b) => a -> String
| > foo _ = "works"
| >
| > runFoo:: (forall a b. (Foo a b) => a -> w) -> w
| > runFoo f = f Obj
| 
| *Test> runFoo foo
| 
| <interactive>:1:
|     Could not deduce (Bar a b) from the context (Foo a b)
|       arising from use of `foo' at <interactive>:1
|     Probable fix:
|         Add (Bar a b) to the expected type of an expression
|     In the first argument of `runFoo', namely `foo'
|     In the definition of `it': it = runFoo foo
| 
| Why all of the sudden does GHC need the constraint Bar a b? The
| function foo didn't ask for that... 

The trouble is that to type (runFoo foo), GHC has to solve the problem:

	Given constraint	Foo a b
	Solve constraint	Foo a b'

Notice that b and b' aren't the same.  To solve this, just do
improvement and then they are the same.  But GHC currently does
	simplify constraints
	apply improvement
	and loop

That is usually fine, but it isn't here, because it sees that Foo a b is
not the same as Foo a b', and so instead applies the instance decl for
instance Bar a b => Foo a b.  And that's where the Bar constraint comes
from.

The Right Thing is to improve whenever the constraint set changes at
all.  Not hard in principle, but it'll take a bit of fiddling to do.  



138
	--------------------------------------
139
		Notes on quantification
140
	--------------------------------------
141
142
143
144
145
146

Suppose we are about to do a generalisation step.
We have in our hand

	G	the environment
	T	the type of the RHS
147
	C	the constraints from that RHS
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

The game is to figure out

	Q	the set of type variables over which to quantify
	Ct	the constraints we will *not* quantify over
	Cq	the constraints we will quantify over

So we're going to infer the type

	forall Q. Cq => T

159
and float the constraints Ct further outwards.
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197

Here are the things that *must* be true:

 (A)	Q intersect fv(G) = EMPTY			limits how big Q can be
 (B)	Q superset fv(Cq union T) \ oclose(fv(G),C)	limits how small Q can be

(A) says we can't quantify over a variable that's free in the
environment.  (B) says we must quantify over all the truly free
variables in T, else we won't get a sufficiently general type.  We do
not *need* to quantify over any variable that is fixed by the free
vars of the environment G.

	BETWEEN THESE TWO BOUNDS, ANY Q WILL DO!

Example:	class H x y | x->y where ...

	fv(G) = {a}	C = {H a b, H c d}
			T = c -> b

	(A)  Q intersect {a} is empty
	(B)  Q superset {a,b,c,d} \ oclose({a}, C) = {a,b,c,d} \ {a,b} = {c,d}

	So Q can be {c,d}, {b,c,d}

Other things being equal, however, we'd like to quantify over as few
variables as possible: smaller types, fewer type applications, more
constraints can get into Ct instead of Cq.


-----------------------------------------
We will make use of

  fv(T)	 	the free type vars of T

  oclose(vs,C)	The result of extending the set of tyvars vs
		using the functional dependencies from C

  grow(vs,C)	The result of extend the set of tyvars vs
198
		using all conceivable links from C.
199
200
201
202
203
204
205

		E.g. vs = {a}, C = {H [a] b, K (b,Int) c, Eq e}
		Then grow(vs,C) = {a,b,c}

		Note that grow(vs,C) `superset` grow(vs,simplify(C))
		That is, simplfication can only shrink the result of grow.

206
Notice that
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
   oclose is conservative one way:      v `elem` oclose(vs,C) => v is definitely fixed by vs
   grow is conservative the other way:  if v might be fixed by vs => v `elem` grow(vs,C)


-----------------------------------------

Choosing Q
~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a good way to choose Q:

	Q = grow( fv(T), C ) \ oclose( fv(G), C )

That is, quantify over all variable that that MIGHT be fixed by the
call site (which influences T), but which aren't DEFINITELY fixed by
G.  This choice definitely quantifies over enough type variables,
albeit perhaps too many.

Why grow( fv(T), C ) rather than fv(T)?  Consider

	class H x y | x->y where ...
227

228
229
230
231
232
233
234
	T = c->c
	C = (H c d)

  If we used fv(T) = {c} we'd get the type

	forall c. H c d => c -> b

235
  And then if the fn was called at several different c's, each of
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
  which fixed d differently, we'd get a unification error, because
  d isn't quantified.  Solution: quantify d.  So we must quantify
  everything that might be influenced by c.

Why not oclose( fv(T), C )?  Because we might not be able to see
all the functional dependencies yet:

	class H x y | x->y where ...
	instance H x y => Eq (T x y) where ...

	T = c->c
	C = (Eq (T c d))

  Now oclose(fv(T),C) = {c}, because the functional dependency isn't
  apparent yet, and that's wrong.  We must really quantify over d too.


There really isn't any point in quantifying over any more than
grow( fv(T), C ), because the call sites can't possibly influence
any other type variables.



simonpj@microsoft.com's avatar
simonpj@microsoft.com committed
259
260
261
-------------------------------------
	Note [Ambiguity]
-------------------------------------
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300

It's very hard to be certain when a type is ambiguous.  Consider

	class K x
	class H x y | x -> y
	instance H x y => K (x,y)

Is this type ambiguous?
	forall a b. (K (a,b), Eq b) => a -> a

Looks like it!  But if we simplify (K (a,b)) we get (H a b) and
now we see that a fixes b.  So we can't tell about ambiguity for sure
without doing a full simplification.  And even that isn't possible if
the context has some free vars that may get unified.  Urgle!

Here's another example: is this ambiguous?
	forall a b. Eq (T b) => a -> a
Not if there's an insance decl (with no context)
	instance Eq (T b) where ...

You may say of this example that we should use the instance decl right
away, but you can't always do that:

	class J a b where ...
	instance J Int b where ...

	f :: forall a b. J a b => a -> a

(Notice: no functional dependency in J's class decl.)
Here f's type is perfectly fine, provided f is only called at Int.
It's premature to complain when meeting f's signature, or even
when inferring a type for f.



However, we don't *need* to report ambiguity right away.  It'll always
show up at the call site.... and eventually at main, which needs special
treatment.  Nevertheless, reporting ambiguity promptly is an excellent thing.

301
So here's the plan.  We WARN about probable ambiguity if
302
303
304
305
306

	fv(Cq) is not a subset of  oclose(fv(T) union fv(G), C)

(all tested before quantification).
That is, all the type variables in Cq must be fixed by the the variables
307
in the environment, or by the variables in the type.
308
309
310

Notice that we union before calling oclose.  Here's an example:

311
	class J a b c | a b -> c
312
313
314
	fv(G) = {a}

Is this ambiguous?
315
	forall b c. (J a b c) => b -> b
316
317

Only if we union {a} from G with {b} from T before using oclose,
318
do we see that c is fixed.
319

320
It's a bit vague exactly which C we should use for this oclose call.  If we
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
don't fix enough variables we might complain when we shouldn't (see
the above nasty example).  Nothing will be perfect.  That's why we can
only issue a warning.


Can we ever be *certain* about ambiguity?  Yes: if there's a constraint

	c in C such that fv(c) intersect (fv(G) union fv(T)) = EMPTY

330
then c is a "bubble"; there's no way it can ever improve, and it's
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
certainly ambiguous.  UNLESS it is a constant (sigh).  And what about
the nasty example?

	class K x
	class H x y | x -> y
	instance H x y => K (x,y)

Is this type ambiguous?
	forall a b. (K (a,b), Eq b) => a -> a

Urk.  The (Eq b) looks "definitely ambiguous" but it isn't.  What we are after
is a "bubble" that's a set of constraints

	Cq = Ca union Cq'  st  fv(Ca) intersect (fv(Cq') union fv(T) union fv(G)) = EMPTY

Hence another idea.  To decide Q start with fv(T) and grow it
by transitive closure in Cq (no functional dependencies involved).
Now partition Cq using Q, leaving the definitely-ambiguous and probably-ok.
349
The definitely-ambiguous can then float out, and get smashed at top level
350
351
352
(which squashes out the constants, like Eq (T a) above)


353
	--------------------------------------
354
		Notes on principal types
355
	--------------------------------------
356
357
358

    class C a where
      op :: a -> a
359

360
361
362
363
364
365
366
    f x = let g y = op (y::Int) in True

Here the principal type of f is (forall a. a->a)
but we'll produce the non-principal type
    f :: forall a. C Int => a -> a


367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
	--------------------------------------
	The need for forall's in constraints
	--------------------------------------

[Exchange on Haskell Cafe 5/6 Dec 2000]

  class C t where op :: t -> Bool
  instance C [t] where op x = True

  p y = (let f :: c -> Bool; f x = op (y >> return x) in f, y ++ [])
  q y = (y ++ [], let f :: c -> Bool; f x = op (y >> return x) in f)

The definitions of p and q differ only in the order of the components in
the pair on their right-hand sides.  And yet:

  ghc and "Typing Haskell in Haskell" reject p, but accept q;
  Hugs rejects q, but accepts p;
  hbc rejects both p and q;
  nhc98 ... (Malcolm, can you fill in the blank for us!).

The type signature for f forces context reduction to take place, and
the results of this depend on whether or not the type of y is known,
which in turn depends on which component of the pair the type checker
analyzes first.  

Solution: if y::m a, float out the constraints
	Monad m, forall c. C (m c)
When m is later unified with [], we can solve both constraints.


397
	--------------------------------------
398
		Notes on implicit parameters
399
	--------------------------------------
400

401
402
403
404
405
Question 1: can we "inherit" implicit parameters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consider this:

	f x = (x::Int) + ?y
406

407
408
409
where f is *not* a top-level binding.
From the RHS of f we'll get the constraint (?y::Int).
There are two types we might infer for f:
410

411
412
413
	f :: Int -> Int

(so we get ?y from the context of f's definition), or
414
415
416

	f :: (?y::Int) => Int -> Int

417
418
419
420
421
422
At first you might think the first was better, becuase then
?y behaves like a free variable of the definition, rather than
having to be passed at each call site.  But of course, the WHOLE
IDEA is that ?y should be passed at each call site (that's what
dynamic binding means) so we'd better infer the second.

423
424
BOTTOM LINE: when *inferring types* you *must* quantify 
over implicit parameters. See the predicate isFreeWhenInferring.
425

426
427
428
429
430

Question 2: type signatures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BUT WATCH OUT: When you supply a type signature, we can't force you
to quantify over implicit parameters.  For example:
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441

	(?x + 1) :: Int

This is perfectly reasonable.  We do not want to insist on

	(?x + 1) :: (?x::Int => Int)

That would be silly.  Here, the definition site *is* the occurrence site,
so the above strictures don't apply.  Hence the difference between
tcSimplifyCheck (which *does* allow implicit paramters to be inherited)
and tcSimplifyCheckBind (which does not).
442

443
444
445
What about when you supply a type signature for a binding?
Is it legal to give the following explicit, user type 
signature to f, thus:
446

447
	f :: Int -> Int
448
	f x = (x::Int) + ?y
449

450
At first sight this seems reasonable, but it has the nasty property
451
that adding a type signature changes the dynamic semantics.
452
Consider this:
453

454
	(let f x = (x::Int) + ?y
455
456
457
458
 	 in (f 3, f 3 with ?y=5))  with ?y = 6

		returns (3+6, 3+5)
vs
459
	(let f :: Int -> Int
460
	     f x = x + ?y
461
462
463
464
	 in (f 3, f 3 with ?y=5))  with ?y = 6

		returns (3+6, 3+6)

465
466
Indeed, simply inlining f (at the Haskell source level) would change the
dynamic semantics.
467

468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
Nevertheless, as Launchbury says (email Oct 01) we can't really give the
semantics for a Haskell program without knowing its typing, so if you 
change the typing you may change the semantics.

To make things consistent in all cases where we are *checking* against
a supplied signature (as opposed to inferring a type), we adopt the
rule: 

	a signature does not need to quantify over implicit params.

[This represents a (rather marginal) change of policy since GHC 5.02,
which *required* an explicit signature to quantify over all implicit
params for the reasons mentioned above.]

But that raises a new question.  Consider 

	Given (signature)	?x::Int
	Wanted (inferred)	?x::Int, ?y::Bool

Clearly we want to discharge the ?x and float the ?y out.  But
what is the criterion that distinguishes them?  Clearly it isn't
what free type variables they have.  The Right Thing seems to be
to float a constraint that
	neither mentions any of the quantified type variables
	nor any of the quantified implicit parameters

See the predicate isFreeWhenChecking.
495

496

497
498
499
Question 3: monomorphism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's a nasty corner case when the monomorphism restriction bites:
500

501
502
	z = (x::Int) + ?y

503
504
The argument above suggests that we *must* generalise
over the ?y parameter, to get
505
506
	z :: (?y::Int) => Int,
but the monomorphism restriction says that we *must not*, giving
507
	z :: Int.
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
Why does the momomorphism restriction say this?  Because if you have

	let z = x + ?y in z+z

you might not expect the addition to be done twice --- but it will if
we follow the argument of Question 2 and generalise over ?y.


516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
Question 4: top level
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the top level, monomorhism makes no sense at all.

    module Main where
	main = let ?x = 5 in print foo

	foo = woggle 3

	woggle :: (?x :: Int) => Int -> Int
	woggle y = ?x + y

We definitely don't want (foo :: Int) with a top-level implicit parameter
(?x::Int) becuase there is no way to bind it.  

531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538

Possible choices
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(A) Always generalise over implicit parameters
    Bindings that fall under the monomorphism restriction can't
	be generalised

    Consequences:
539
	* Inlining remains valid
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
	* No unexpected loss of sharing
	* But simple bindings like
		z = ?y + 1
	  will be rejected, unless you add an explicit type signature
	  (to avoid the monomorphism restriction)
		z :: (?y::Int) => Int
		z = ?y + 1
	  This seems unacceptable

(B) Monomorphism restriction "wins"
    Bindings that fall under the monomorphism restriction can't
	be generalised
    Always generalise over implicit parameters *except* for bindings
	that fall under the monomorphism restriction

    Consequences
	* Inlining isn't valid in general
	* No unexpected loss of sharing
	* Simple bindings like
		z = ?y + 1
	  accepted (get value of ?y from binding site)

(C) Always generalise over implicit parameters
    Bindings that fall under the monomorphism restriction can't
	be generalised, EXCEPT for implicit parameters
    Consequences
	* Inlining remains valid
	* Unexpected loss of sharing (from the extra generalisation)
	* Simple bindings like
		z = ?y + 1
	  accepted (get value of ?y from occurrence sites)


Discussion
~~~~~~~~~~
None of these choices seems very satisfactory.  But at least we should
decide which we want to do.
577

578
It's really not clear what is the Right Thing To Do.  If you see
579

580
	z = (x::Int) + ?y
581

582
583
584
585
586
587
would you expect the value of ?y to be got from the *occurrence sites*
of 'z', or from the valuue of ?y at the *definition* of 'z'?  In the
case of function definitions, the answer is clearly the former, but
less so in the case of non-fucntion definitions.   On the other hand,
if we say that we get the value of ?y from the definition site of 'z',
then inlining 'z' might change the semantics of the program.
588

589
Choice (C) really says "the monomorphism restriction doesn't apply
590
to implicit parameters".  Which is fine, but remember that every
591
592
593
innocent binding 'x = ...' that mentions an implicit parameter in
the RHS becomes a *function* of that parameter, called at each
use of 'x'.  Now, the chances are that there are no intervening 'with'
594
clauses that bind ?y, so a decent compiler should common up all
595
596
597
those function calls.  So I think I strongly favour (C).  Indeed,
one could make a similar argument for abolishing the monomorphism
restriction altogether.
598

599
BOTTOM LINE: we choose (B) at present.  See tcSimplifyRestricted
600

601

602

603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
%************************************************************************
%*									*
\subsection{tcSimplifyInfer}
%*									*
%************************************************************************

tcSimplify is called when we *inferring* a type.  Here's the overall game plan:

    1. Compute Q = grow( fvs(T), C )
612
613

    2. Partition C based on Q into Ct and Cq.  Notice that ambiguous
614
       predicates will end up in Ct; we deal with them at the top level
615

616
    3. Try improvement, using functional dependencies
617

618
619
620
621
    4. If Step 3 did any unification, repeat from step 1
       (Unification can change the result of 'grow'.)

Note: we don't reduce dictionaries in step 2.  For example, if we have
622
Eq (a,b), we don't simplify to (Eq a, Eq b).  So Q won't be different
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
after step 2.  However note that we may therefore quantify over more
type variables than we absolutely have to.

For the guts, we need a loop, that alternates context reduction and
improvement with unification.  E.g. Suppose we have

	class C x y | x->y where ...
630

631
632
633
634
635
636
and tcSimplify is called with:
	(C Int a, C Int b)
Then improvement unifies a with b, giving
	(C Int a, C Int a)

If we need to unify anything, we rattle round the whole thing all over
637
again.
638

639
640

\begin{code}
641
tcSimplifyInfer
642
643
	:: SDoc
	-> TcTyVarSet		-- fv(T); type vars
644
	-> [Inst]		-- Wanted
645
646
647
	-> TcM ([TcTyVar],	-- Tyvars to quantify (zonked)
		TcDictBinds,	-- Bindings
		[TcId])		-- Dict Ids that must be bound here (zonked)
648
	-- Any free (escaping) Insts are tossed into the environment
649
\end{code}
650

651
652
653

\begin{code}
tcSimplifyInfer doc tau_tvs wanted_lie
654
  = inferLoop doc (varSetElems tau_tvs)
655
	      wanted_lie		`thenM` \ (qtvs, frees, binds, irreds) ->
656

657
658
    extendLIEs frees							`thenM_`
    returnM (qtvs, binds, map instToId irreds)
659
660
661

inferLoop doc tau_tvs wanteds
  =   	-- Step 1
662
663
664
    zonkTcTyVarsAndFV tau_tvs		`thenM` \ tau_tvs' ->
    mappM zonkInst wanteds		`thenM` \ wanteds' ->
    tcGetGlobalTyVars			`thenM` \ gbl_tvs ->
665
    let
666
 	preds = fdPredsOfInsts wanteds'
667
	qtvs  = grow preds tau_tvs' `minusVarSet` oclose preds gbl_tvs
668
669

	try_me inst
670
	  | isFreeWhenInferring qtvs inst = Free
671
672
673
	  | isClassDict inst 		  = Irred		-- Dicts
	  | otherwise	    		  = ReduceMe NoSCs	-- Lits and Methods
	env = mkRedEnv doc try_me []
674
    in
675
676
    traceTc (text "infloop" <+> vcat [ppr tau_tvs', ppr wanteds', ppr preds, 
				      ppr (grow preds tau_tvs'), ppr qtvs])	`thenM_`
677
		-- Step 2
678
    reduceContext env wanteds'    `thenM` \ (improved, frees, binds, irreds) ->
679

680
		-- Step 3
681
    if not improved then
682
	returnM (varSetElems qtvs, frees, binds, irreds)
683
    else
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
	-- If improvement did some unification, we go round again.  There
	-- are two subtleties:
	--   a) We start again with irreds, not wanteds
	-- 	Using an instance decl might have introduced a fresh type variable
	--	which might have been unified, so we'd get an infinite loop
	--	if we started again with wanteds!  See example [LOOP]
	--
	--   b) It's also essential to re-process frees, because unification
	--      might mean that a type variable that looked free isn't now.
	--
	-- Hence the (irreds ++ frees)

696
697
698
	-- However, NOTICE that when we are done, we might have some bindings, but
	-- the final qtvs might be empty.  See [NO TYVARS] below.
				
699
	inferLoop doc tau_tvs (irreds ++ frees)	`thenM` \ (qtvs1, frees1, binds1, irreds1) ->
700
	returnM (qtvs1, frees1, binds `unionBags` binds1, irreds1)
701
\end{code}
702

703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
Example [LOOP]

	class If b t e r | b t e -> r
	instance If T t e t
	instance If F t e e
	class Lte a b c | a b -> c where lte :: a -> b -> c
	instance Lte Z b T
	instance (Lte a b l,If l b a c) => Max a b c

Wanted:	Max Z (S x) y

Then we'll reduce using the Max instance to:
	(Lte Z (S x) l, If l (S x) Z y)
716
and improve by binding l->T, after which we can do some reduction
717
718
719
on both the Lte and If constraints.  What we *can't* do is start again
with (Max Z (S x) y)!

720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
[NO TYVARS]

	class Y a b | a -> b where
	    y :: a -> X b
	
	instance Y [[a]] a where
	    y ((x:_):_) = X x
	
	k :: X a -> X a -> X a

	g :: Num a => [X a] -> [X a]
	g xs = h xs
	    where
	    h ys = ys ++ map (k (y [[0]])) xs

The excitement comes when simplifying the bindings for h.  Initially
try to simplify {y @ [[t1]] t2, 0 @ t1}, with initial qtvs = {t2}.
From this we get t1:=:t2, but also various bindings.  We can't forget
the bindings (because of [LOOP]), but in fact t1 is what g is
739
740
741
polymorphic in.  

The net effect of [NO TYVARS] 
742

743
\begin{code}
744
745
isFreeWhenInferring :: TyVarSet -> Inst	-> Bool
isFreeWhenInferring qtvs inst
746
747
748
  =  isFreeWrtTyVars qtvs inst		-- Constrains no quantified vars
  && isInheritableInst inst		-- And no implicit parameter involved
					-- (see "Notes on implicit parameters")
749

750
{-	No longer used (with implication constraints)
751
752
753
754
755
756
isFreeWhenChecking :: TyVarSet	-- Quantified tyvars
	 	   -> NameSet	-- Quantified implicit parameters
		   -> Inst -> Bool
isFreeWhenChecking qtvs ips inst
  =  isFreeWrtTyVars qtvs inst
  && isFreeWrtIPs    ips inst
757
-}
758

759
isFreeWrtTyVars qtvs inst = tyVarsOfInst inst `disjointVarSet` qtvs
760
isFreeWrtIPs     ips inst = not (any (`elemNameSet` ips) (ipNamesOfInst inst))
761
\end{code}
762

763

764
765
766
767
768
%************************************************************************
%*									*
\subsection{tcSimplifyCheck}
%*									*
%************************************************************************
769

770
@tcSimplifyCheck@ is used when we know exactly the set of variables
771
we are going to quantify over.  For example, a class or instance declaration.
772
773

\begin{code}
774
-----------------------------------------------------------
775
-- tcSimplifyCheck is used when checking expression type signatures,
776
-- class decls, instance decls etc.
777
778
779
780
781
782
tcSimplifyCheck	:: InstLoc
	 	-> [TcTyVar]		-- Quantify over these
	 	-> [Inst]		-- Given
	 	-> [Inst]		-- Wanted
	 	-> TcM TcDictBinds	-- Bindings
tcSimplifyCheck loc qtvs givens wanteds 
783
  = ASSERT( all isSkolemTyVar qtvs )
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
    do	{ (binds, irreds) <- innerCheckLoop loc AddSCs givens wanteds
	; implic_bind <- makeImplicationBind loc [] emptyRefinement 
					     qtvs givens irreds
	; return (binds `unionBags` implic_bind) }

-----------------------------------------------------------
-- tcSimplifyCheckPat is used for existential pattern match
tcSimplifyCheckPat :: InstLoc
	 	   -> [CoVar] -> Refinement
	 	   -> [TcTyVar]		-- Quantify over these
	 	   -> [Inst]		-- Given
	 	   -> [Inst]		-- Wanted
	 	   -> TcM TcDictBinds	-- Bindings
tcSimplifyCheckPat loc co_vars reft qtvs givens wanteds
  = ASSERT( all isSkolemTyVar qtvs )
    do	{ (binds, irreds) <- innerCheckLoop loc AddSCs givens wanteds
	; implic_bind <- makeImplicationBind loc co_vars reft 
					     qtvs givens irreds
	; return (binds `unionBags` implic_bind) }

-----------------------------------------------------------
makeImplicationBind :: InstLoc -> [CoVar] -> Refinement
		    -> [TcTyVar] -> [Inst] -> [Inst]
		    -> TcM TcDictBinds	
-- Make a binding that binds 'irreds', by generating an implication
-- constraint for them, *and* throwing the constraint into the LIE
makeImplicationBind loc co_vars reft qtvs givens irreds
  = do	{ let givens' = filter isDict givens
		-- The givens can include methods

	   -- If there are no 'givens', then it's safe to 
	   -- partition the 'wanteds' by their qtvs, thereby trimming irreds
	   -- See Note [Freeness and implications]
	; irreds <- if null givens'
	     then do
		{ let qtv_set = mkVarSet qtvs
		      (frees, real_irreds) = partition (isFreeWrtTyVars qtv_set) irreds
		; extendLIEs frees
		; return real_irreds }
	     else 
		return irreds

	-- If there are no irreds, we are done!
	; if null irreds then 
		return emptyBag
	  else do

	-- Otherwise we must generate a binding
	-- The binding looks like
	--	(ir1, .., irn) = f qtvs givens
	-- where f is (evidence for) the new implication constraint
	--
	-- This binding must line up the 'rhs' in reduceImplication

	{ uniq <- newUnique 
	; span <- getSrcSpanM
	; let all_tvs = qtvs ++ co_vars	-- Abstract over all these
	      name = mkInternalName uniq (mkVarOcc "ic") (srcSpanStart span)
	      implic_inst = ImplicInst { tci_name = name, tci_reft = reft,
					 tci_tyvars = all_tvs, 
					 tci_given = givens',
					 tci_wanted = irreds, tci_loc = loc }

	; let n_irreds = length irreds
	      irred_ids = map instToId irreds
	      tup_ty = mkTupleTy Boxed n_irreds (map idType irred_ids)
	      pat = TuplePat (map nlVarPat irred_ids) Boxed tup_ty
	      rhs = L span (mkHsWrap co (HsVar (instToId implic_inst)))
	      co  = mkWpApps (map instToId givens') <.> mkWpTyApps (mkTyVarTys all_tvs)
	      bind | n_irreds==1 = VarBind (head irred_ids) rhs
		   | otherwise   = PatBind { pat_lhs = L span pat, 
				      	     pat_rhs = unguardedGRHSs rhs, 
				      	     pat_rhs_ty = tup_ty,
				      	     bind_fvs = placeHolderNames }
	; -- pprTrace "Make implic inst" (ppr implic_inst) $
	  extendLIE implic_inst
	; return (unitBag (L span bind)) }}


-----------------------------------------------------------
topCheckLoop :: SDoc
	     -> [Inst]			-- Wanted
	     -> TcM (TcDictBinds,
		     [Inst])		-- Irreducible

topCheckLoop doc wanteds
  = checkLoop (mkRedEnv doc try_me []) wanteds
871
  where
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
    try_me inst = ReduceMe AddSCs

-----------------------------------------------------------
innerCheckLoop :: InstLoc -> WantSCs
	       -> [Inst]		-- Given
	       -> [Inst]		-- Wanted
	       -> TcM (TcDictBinds,
		       [Inst])		-- Irreducible

innerCheckLoop inst_loc want_scs givens wanteds
  = checkLoop env wanteds
  where
    env = mkRedEnv (pprInstLoc inst_loc) try_me givens

    try_me inst | isMethodOrLit inst = ReduceMe want_scs
		| otherwise	     = Irred
	-- When checking against a given signature 
	-- we MUST be very gentle: Note [Check gently]
\end{code}

Note [Check gently]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have to very careful about not simplifying too vigorously
Example:  
  data T a where
    MkT :: a -> T [a]

  f :: Show b => T b -> b
  f (MkT x) = show [x]

Inside the pattern match, which binds (a:*, x:a), we know that
	b ~ [a]
Hence we have a dictionary for Show [a] available; and indeed we 
need it.  We are going to build an implication contraint
	forall a. (b~[a]) => Show [a]
Later, we will solve this constraint using the knowledge (Show b)
	
But we MUST NOT reduce (Show [a]) to (Show a), else the whole
thing becomes insoluble.  So we simplify gently (get rid of literals
and methods only, plus common up equal things), deferring the real
work until top level, when we solve the implication constraint
with topCheckLooop.


\begin{code}
-----------------------------------------------------------
checkLoop :: RedEnv
	  -> [Inst]			-- Wanted
	  -> TcM (TcDictBinds,
		  [Inst])		-- Irreducible
-- Precondition: the try_me never returns Free
-- 		 givens are completely rigid

checkLoop env wanteds
  = do { -- Givens are skolems, so no need to zonk them
	 wanteds' <- mappM zonkInst wanteds

	; (improved, _frees, binds, irreds) <- reduceContext env wanteds'

	; ASSERT( null _frees )

	  if not improved then
 	     return (binds, irreds)
	  else do

	{ (binds1, irreds1) <- checkLoop env irreds
	; return (binds `unionBags` binds1, irreds1) } }
\end{code}
940
941


942
943
\begin{code}
-----------------------------------------------------------
944
945
946
947
-- tcSimplifyInferCheck is used when we know the constraints we are to simplify
-- against, but we don't know the type variables over which we are going to quantify.
-- This happens when we have a type signature for a mutually recursive group
tcSimplifyInferCheck
948
	 :: InstLoc
949
950
	 -> TcTyVarSet		-- fv(T)
	 -> [Inst]		-- Given
951
	 -> [Inst]		-- Wanted
952
953
954
	 -> TcM ([TcTyVar],	-- Variables over which to quantify
		 TcDictBinds)	-- Bindings

955
956
957
tcSimplifyInferCheck loc tau_tvs givens wanteds
  = do	{ (binds, irreds) <- innerCheckLoop loc AddSCs givens wanteds

958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
	-- Figure out which type variables to quantify over
	-- You might think it should just be the signature tyvars,
	-- but in bizarre cases you can get extra ones
	-- 	f :: forall a. Num a => a -> a
	--	f x = fst (g (x, head [])) + 1
	--	g a b = (b,a)
	-- Here we infer g :: forall a b. a -> b -> (b,a)
	-- We don't want g to be monomorphic in b just because
	-- f isn't quantified over b.
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
	; let all_tvs = varSetElems (tau_tvs `unionVarSet` tyVarsOfInsts givens)
	; all_tvs <- zonkTcTyVarsAndFV all_tvs
	; gbl_tvs <- tcGetGlobalTyVars
	; let qtvs = varSetElems (all_tvs `minusVarSet` gbl_tvs)
		-- We could close gbl_tvs, but its not necessary for
		-- soundness, and it'll only affect which tyvars, not which
		-- dictionaries, we quantify over

		-- Now we are back to normal (c.f. tcSimplCheck)
	; implic_bind <- makeImplicationBind loc [] emptyRefinement 
					     qtvs givens irreds
	; return (qtvs, binds `unionBags` implic_bind) }
979
980
981
\end{code}


982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
%************************************************************************
%*									*
		tcSimplifySuperClasses
%*									*
%************************************************************************

Note [SUPERCLASS-LOOP 1]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have to be very, very careful when generating superclasses, lest we
accidentally build a loop. Here's an example:

  class S a

  class S a => C a where { opc :: a -> a }
  class S b => D b where { opd :: b -> b }
  
  instance C Int where
     opc = opd
  
  instance D Int where
     opd = opc

From (instance C Int) we get the constraint set {ds1:S Int, dd:D Int}
Simplifying, we may well get:
	$dfCInt = :C ds1 (opd dd)
	dd  = $dfDInt
	ds1 = $p1 dd
Notice that we spot that we can extract ds1 from dd.  

Alas!  Alack! We can do the same for (instance D Int):

	$dfDInt = :D ds2 (opc dc)
	dc  = $dfCInt
	ds2 = $p1 dc

And now we've defined the superclass in terms of itself.

Solution: never generate a superclass selectors at all when
satisfying the superclass context of an instance declaration.

Two more nasty cases are in
	tcrun021
	tcrun033

\begin{code}
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
tcSimplifySuperClasses 
	:: InstLoc 
	-> [Inst]	-- Given 
	-> [Inst]	-- Wanted
	-> TcM TcDictBinds
tcSimplifySuperClasses loc givens sc_wanteds
  = do	{ (binds1, irreds) <- checkLoop env sc_wanteds
	; let (tidy_env, tidy_irreds) = tidyInsts irreds
	; reportNoInstances tidy_env (Just (loc, givens)) tidy_irreds
	; return binds1 }
1037
  where
1038
1039
1040
    env = mkRedEnv (pprInstLoc loc) try_me givens
    try_me inst = ReduceMe NoSCs
	-- Like topCheckLoop, but with NoSCs
1041
1042
1043
\end{code}


1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
%************************************************************************
%*									*
\subsection{tcSimplifyRestricted}
%*									*
%************************************************************************

1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
tcSimplifyRestricted infers which type variables to quantify for a 
group of restricted bindings.  This isn't trivial.

Eg1:	id = \x -> x
	We want to quantify over a to get id :: forall a. a->a
	
Eg2:	eq = (==)
	We do not want to quantify over a, because there's an Eq a 
	constraint, so we get eq :: a->a->Bool	(notice no forall)

So, assume:
	RHS has type 'tau', whose free tyvars are tau_tvs
	RHS has constraints 'wanteds'

Plan A (simple)
  Quantify over (tau_tvs \ ftvs(wanteds))
  This is bad. The constraints may contain (Monad (ST s))
  where we have 	instance Monad (ST s) where...
  so there's no need to be monomorphic in s!

  Also the constraint might be a method constraint,
  whose type mentions a perfectly innocent tyvar:
	  op :: Num a => a -> b -> a
  Here, b is unconstrained.  A good example would be
	foo = op (3::Int)
  We want to infer the polymorphic type
	foo :: forall b. b -> b


Plan B (cunning, used for a long time up to and including GHC 6.2)
  Step 1: Simplify the constraints as much as possible (to deal 
  with Plan A's problem).  Then set
	qtvs = tau_tvs \ ftvs( simplify( wanteds ) )

  Step 2: Now simplify again, treating the constraint as 'free' if 
  it does not mention qtvs, and trying to reduce it otherwise.
  The reasons for this is to maximise sharing.

  This fails for a very subtle reason.  Suppose that in the Step 2
  a constraint (Foo (Succ Zero) (Succ Zero) b) gets thrown upstairs as 'free'.
  In the Step 1 this constraint might have been simplified, perhaps to
  (Foo Zero Zero b), AND THEN THAT MIGHT BE IMPROVED, to bind 'b' to 'T'.
  This won't happen in Step 2... but that in turn might prevent some other
1093
1094
  constraint (Baz [a] b) being simplified (e.g. via instance Baz [a] T where {..}) 
  and that in turn breaks the invariant that no constraints are quantified over.
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106

  Test typecheck/should_compile/tc177 (which failed in GHC 6.2) demonstrates
  the problem.


Plan C (brutal)
  Step 1: Simplify the constraints as much as possible (to deal 
  with Plan A's problem).  Then set
	qtvs = tau_tvs \ ftvs( simplify( wanteds ) )
  Return the bindings from Step 1.
  

1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
A note about Plan C (arising from "bug" reported by George Russel March 2004)
Consider this:

      instance (HasBinary ty IO) => HasCodedValue ty

      foo :: HasCodedValue a => String -> IO a

      doDecodeIO :: HasCodedValue a => () -> () -> IO a
      doDecodeIO codedValue view  
        = let { act = foo "foo" } in  act

You might think this should work becuase the call to foo gives rise to a constraint
(HasCodedValue t), which can be satisfied by the type sig for doDecodeIO.  But the
restricted binding act = ... calls tcSimplifyRestricted, and PlanC simplifies the
constraint using the (rather bogus) instance declaration, and now we are stuffed.
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142

I claim this is not really a bug -- but it bit Sergey as well as George.  So here's
plan D


Plan D (a variant of plan B)
  Step 1: Simplify the constraints as much as possible (to deal 
  with Plan A's problem), BUT DO NO IMPROVEMENT.  Then set
	qtvs = tau_tvs \ ftvs( simplify( wanteds ) )

  Step 2: Now simplify again, treating the constraint as 'free' if 
  it does not mention qtvs, and trying to reduce it otherwise.

  The point here is that it's generally OK to have too few qtvs; that is,
  to make the thing more monomorphic than it could be.  We don't want to
  do that in the common cases, but in wierd cases it's ok: the programmer
  can always add a signature.  

  Too few qtvs => too many wanteds, which is what happens if you do less
  improvement.

1143

1144
1145
\begin{code}
tcSimplifyRestricted 	-- Used for restricted binding groups
1146
			-- i.e. ones subject to the monomorphism restriction
1147
	:: SDoc
1148
1149
	-> TopLevelFlag
	-> [Name]		-- Things bound in this group
1150
	-> TcTyVarSet		-- Free in the type of the RHSs
1151
	-> [Inst]		-- Free in the RHSs
1152
1153
	-> TcM ([TcTyVar],	-- Tyvars to quantify (zonked)
		TcDictBinds)	-- Bindings
1154
1155
1156
	-- tcSimpifyRestricted returns no constraints to
	-- quantify over; by definition there are none.
	-- They are all thrown back in the LIE
1157

1158
tcSimplifyRestricted doc top_lvl bndrs tau_tvs wanteds
1159
1160
1161
1162
	-- Zonk everything in sight
  = mappM zonkInst wanteds			`thenM` \ wanteds' ->

   	-- 'reduceMe': Reduce as far as we can.  Don't stop at
1163
1164
1165
1166
	-- dicts; the idea is to get rid of as many type
	-- variables as possible, and we don't want to stop
	-- at (say) Monad (ST s), because that reduces
	-- immediately, with no constraint on s.
1167
1168
	--
	-- BUT do no improvement!  See Plan D above
1169
1170
	-- HOWEVER, some unification may take place, if we instantiate
	-- 	    a method Inst with an equality constraint
1171
1172
1173
    let env = mkNoImproveRedEnv doc reduceMe
    in
    reduceContext env wanteds' 		`thenM` \ (_imp, _frees, _binds, constrained_dicts) ->
1174
1175

	-- Next, figure out the tyvars we will quantify over
1176
1177
1178
    zonkTcTyVarsAndFV (varSetElems tau_tvs)	`thenM` \ tau_tvs' ->
    tcGetGlobalTyVars				`thenM` \ gbl_tvs' ->
    mappM zonkInst constrained_dicts		`thenM` \ constrained_dicts' ->
1179
    let
1180
1181
1182
	constrained_tvs' = tyVarsOfInsts constrained_dicts'
	qtvs' = (tau_tvs' `minusVarSet` oclose (fdPredsOfInsts constrained_dicts) gbl_tvs')
			 `minusVarSet` constrained_tvs'
1183
    in
1184
    traceTc (text "tcSimplifyRestricted" <+> vcat [
1185
		pprInsts wanteds, pprInsts _frees, pprInsts constrained_dicts',
1186
		ppr _binds,
1187
		ppr constrained_tvs', ppr tau_tvs', ppr qtvs' ])	`thenM_`
1188

1189
1190
1191
1192
	-- The first step may have squashed more methods than
	-- necessary, so try again, this time more gently, knowing the exact
	-- set of type variables to quantify over.
	--
1193
	-- We quantify only over constraints that are captured by qtvs';
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
	-- these will just be a subset of non-dicts.  This in contrast
	-- to normal inference (using isFreeWhenInferring) in which we quantify over
	-- all *non-inheritable* constraints too.  This implements choice
	-- (B) under "implicit parameter and monomorphism" above.
	--
	-- Remember that we may need to do *some* simplification, to
	-- (for example) squash {Monad (ST s)} into {}.  It's not enough
	-- just to float all constraints
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
	--
	-- At top level, we *do* squash methods becuase we want to 
	-- expose implicit parameters to the test that follows
    let
	is_nested_group = isNotTopLevel top_lvl
1207
        try_me inst | isFreeWrtTyVars qtvs' inst,
1208
		      (is_nested_group || isDict inst) = Free
1209
	            | otherwise  		       = ReduceMe AddSCs
1210
1211
1212
 	env = mkNoImproveRedEnv doc try_me
   in
    reduceContext env wanteds'   `thenM` \ (_imp, frees, binds, irreds) ->
1213
    ASSERT( null irreds )
1214
1215
1216
1217

	-- See "Notes on implicit parameters, Question 4: top level"
    if is_nested_group then
	extendLIEs frees	`thenM_`
1218
        returnM (varSetElems qtvs', binds)
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
    else
	let
    	    (non_ips, bad_ips) = partition isClassDict frees
	in    
	addTopIPErrs bndrs bad_ips	`thenM_`
	extendLIEs non_ips		`thenM_`
1225
        returnM (varSetElems qtvs', binds)
1226
1227
\end{code}

1228
1229
1230

%************************************************************************
%*									*
1231
		tcSimplifyRuleLhs
1232
1233
1234
%*									*
%************************************************************************

1235
1236
1237
1238
On the LHS of transformation rules we only simplify methods and constants,
getting dictionaries.  We want to keep all of them unsimplified, to serve
as the available stuff for the RHS of the rule.

1239
1240
1241
Example.  Consider the following left-hand side of a rule
	
	f (x == y) (y > z) = ...
1242

1243
If we typecheck this expression we get constraints
1244

1245
	d1 :: Ord a, d2 :: Eq a
1246

1247
We do NOT want to "simplify" to the LHS
1248

1249
1250
	forall x::a, y::a, z::a, d1::Ord a.
	  f ((==) (eqFromOrd d1) x y) ((>) d1 y z) = ...
1251

1252
Instead we want	
1253

1254
1255
	forall x::a, y::a, z::a, d1::Ord a, d2::Eq a.
	  f ((==) d2 x y) ((>) d1 y z) = ...
1256

1257
Here is another example:
1258
1259
1260
1261

	fromIntegral :: (Integral a, Num b) => a -> b
	{-# RULES "foo"  fromIntegral = id :: Int -> Int #-}

1262
1263
In the rule, a=b=Int, and Num Int is a superclass of Integral Int. But
we *dont* want to get
1264
1265

	forall dIntegralInt.
1266
	   fromIntegral Int Int dIntegralInt (scsel dIntegralInt) = id Int
1267

1268
because the scsel will mess up RULE matching.  Instead we want
1269
1270

	forall dIntegralInt, dNumInt.
1271
	  fromIntegral Int Int dIntegralInt dNumInt = id Int
1272

1273
Even if we have 
1274

1275
	g (x == y) (y == z) = ..
1276

1277
where the two dictionaries are *identical*, we do NOT WANT
1278

1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
	forall x::a, y::a, z::a, d1::Eq a
	  f ((==) d1 x y) ((>) d1 y z) = ...

because that will only match if the dict args are (visibly) equal.
Instead we want to quantify over the dictionaries separately.
1284

1285
1286
1287
In short, tcSimplifyRuleLhs must *only* squash LitInst and MethInts, leaving
all dicts unchanged, with absolutely no sharing.  It's simpler to do this
from scratch, rather than further parameterise simpleReduceLoop etc
1288

1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
\begin{code}
tcSimplifyRuleLhs :: [Inst] -> TcM ([Inst], TcDictBinds)
tcSimplifyRuleLhs wanteds
  = go [] emptyBag wanteds
  where
    go dicts binds []
	= return (dicts, binds)
    go dicts binds (w:ws)
	| isDict w
	= go (w:dicts) binds ws
	| otherwise
	= do { w' <- zonkInst w  -- So that (3::Int) does not generate a call
				 -- to fromInteger; this looks fragile to me
1302
	     ; lookup_result <- lookupSimpleInst w'
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
	     ; case lookup_result of
		 GenInst ws' rhs -> go dicts (addBind binds w rhs) (ws' ++ ws)
		 NoInstance	 -> pprPanic "tcSimplifyRuleLhs" (ppr w)
	  }
\end{code}
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318

tcSimplifyBracket is used when simplifying the constraints arising from
a Template Haskell bracket [| ... |].  We want to check that there aren't
any constraints that can't be satisfied (e.g. Show Foo, where Foo has no
Show instance), but we aren't otherwise interested in the results.
Nor do we care about ambiguous dictionaries etc.  We will type check
this bracket again at its usage site.

\begin{code}
tcSimplifyBracket :: [Inst] -> TcM ()
tcSimplifyBracket wanteds
1319
1320
  = do	{ topCheckLoop doc wanteds
	; return () }
1321
  where
1322
    doc = text "tcSimplifyBracket"
1323
1324
1325
\end{code}


1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
%************************************************************************
%*									*
\subsection{Filtering at a dynamic binding}
%*									*
%************************************************************************

When we have
	let ?x = R in B

we must discharge all the ?x constraints from B.  We also do an improvement
1336
step; if we have ?x::t1 and ?x::t2 we must unify t1, t2.
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342

Actually, the constraints from B might improve the types in ?x. For example

	f :: (?x::Int) => Char -> Char
	let ?x = 3 in f 'c'

1343
then the constraint (?x::Int) arising from the call to f will
1344
force the binding for ?x to be of type Int.
1345
1346

\begin{code}
1347
tcSimplifyIPs :: [Inst]		-- The implicit parameters bound here
1348
1349
	      -> [Inst]		-- Wanted
	      -> TcM TcDictBinds
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
	-- We need a loop so that we do improvement, and then
	-- (next time round) generate a binding to connect the two
	-- 	let ?x = e in ?x
	-- Here the two ?x's have different types, and improvement 
	-- makes them the same.
1355

1356
1357
1358
1359
tcSimplifyIPs given_ips wanteds
  = do	{ wanteds'   <- mappM zonkInst wanteds
	; given_ips' <- mappM zonkInst given_ips
		-- Unusually for checking, we *must* zonk the given_ips
1360

1361
1362
	; let env = mkRedEnv doc try_me given_ips'
	; (improved, _frees, binds, irreds) <- reduceContext env wanteds'
1363

1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
	; if not improved then 
		ASSERT( all is_free irreds )
		do { extendLIEs irreds
		   ; return binds }
	  else
		tcSimplifyIPs given_ips wanteds }
  where
    doc	   = text "tcSimplifyIPs" <+> ppr given_ips
    ip_set = mkNameSet (ipNamesOfInsts given_ips)
    is_free inst = isFreeWrtIPs ip_set inst
1374

1375
1376
1377
	-- Simplify any methods that mention the implicit parameter
    try_me inst | is_free inst = Irred
		| otherwise    = ReduceMe NoSCs
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
\end{code}


%************************************************************************
%*									*
\subsection[binds-for-local-funs]{@bindInstsOfLocalFuns@}
%*									*
%************************************************************************

When doing a binding group, we may have @Insts@ of local functions.
For example, we might have...
\begin{verbatim}
let f x = x + 1	    -- orig local function (overloaded)
    f.1 = f Int	    -- two instances of f
    f.2 = f Float
 in
    (f.1 5, f.2 6.7)
\end{verbatim}
The point is: we must drop the bindings for @f.1@ and @f.2@ here,
where @f@ is in scope; those @Insts@ must certainly not be passed
upwards towards the top-level.	If the @Insts@ were binding-ified up
there, they would have unresolvable references to @f@.

We pass in an @init_lie@ of @Insts@ and a list of locally-bound @Ids@.
For each method @Inst@ in the @init_lie@ that mentions one of the
@Ids@, we create a binding.  We return the remaining @Insts@ (in an
@LIE@), as well as the @HsBinds@ generated.

\begin{code}
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
bindInstsOfLocalFuns ::	[Inst] -> [TcId] -> TcM TcDictBinds
-- Simlifies only MethodInsts, and generate only bindings of form 
--	fm = f tys dicts
-- We're careful not to even generate bindings of the form
--	d1 = d2
-- You'd think that'd be fine, but it interacts with what is
-- arguably a bug in Match.tidyEqnInfo (see notes there)
1414

1415
bindInstsOfLocalFuns wanteds local_ids
1416
  | null overloaded_ids
1417
	-- Common case
1418
  = extendLIEs wanteds		`thenM_`
1419
    returnM emptyLHsBinds
1420
1421

  | otherwise
1422
1423
1424
1425
  = do	{ (binds, irreds) <- checkLoop env for_me
	; extendLIEs not_for_me	
	; extendLIEs irreds
	; return binds }
1426
  where
1427
    env = mkRedEnv doc try_me []
1428
1429
    doc		     = text "bindInsts" <+> ppr local_ids
    overloaded_ids   = filter is_overloaded local_ids
1430
    is_overloaded id = isOverloadedTy (idType id)
1431
    (for_me, not_for_me) = partition (isMethodFor overloaded_set) wanteds
1432
1433

    overloaded_set = mkVarSet overloaded_ids	-- There can occasionally be a lot of them
1434
						-- so it's worth building a set, so that
1435
						-- lookup (in isMethodFor) is faster
1436
    try_me inst | isMethod inst = ReduceMe NoSCs
1437
		| otherwise	= Irred
1438
\end{code}
1439

1440

1441
1442
%************************************************************************
%*									*
1443
\subsection{Data types for the reduction mechanism}
1444
1445
1446
%*									*
%************************************************************************

1447
1448
The main control over context reduction is here

1449
\begin{code}
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
data RedEnv 
  = RedEnv { red_doc	:: SDoc			-- The context
	   , red_try_me :: Inst -> WhatToDo
	   , red_improve :: Bool		-- True <=> do improvement
	   , red_givens :: [Inst]		-- All guaranteed rigid
						-- Always dicts
						-- but see Note [Rigidity]
	   , red_stack  :: (Int, [Inst])	-- Recursion stack (for err msg)
						-- See Note [RedStack]
  }

-- Note [Rigidity]
-- The red_givens are rigid so far as cmpInst is concerned.
-- There is one case where they are not totally rigid, namely in tcSimplifyIPs
--	let ?x = e in ...
-- Here, the given is (?x::a), where 'a' is not necy a rigid type
-- But that doesn't affect the comparison, which is based only on mame.

-- Note [RedStack]
-- The red_stack pair (n,insts) pair is just used for error reporting.
-- 'n' is always the depth of the stack.
-- The 'insts' is the stack of Insts being reduced: to produce X
-- I had to produce Y, to produce Y I had to produce Z, and so on.


mkRedEnv :: SDoc -> (Inst -> WhatToDo) -> [Inst] -> RedEnv
mkRedEnv doc try_me givens
  = RedEnv { red_doc = doc, red_try_me = try_me,
	     red_givens = givens, red_stack = (0,[]),
	     red_improve = True }	

mkNoImproveRedEnv :: SDoc -> (Inst -> WhatToDo) -> RedEnv
-- Do not do improvement; no givens
mkNoImproveRedEnv doc try_me
  = RedEnv { red_doc = doc, red_try_me = try_me,
	     red_givens = [], red_stack = (0,[]),
	     red_improve = True }	

1488
data WhatToDo
1489
 = ReduceMe WantSCs	-- Try to reduce this
1490
1491
1492
			-- If there's no instance, add the inst to the 
			-- irreductible ones, but don't produce an error 
			-- message of any kind.
1493
			-- It might be quite legitimate such as (Eq a)!
1494

1495
1496
 | Irred		-- Return as irreducible unless it can
			-- be reduced to a constant in one step
1497

1498
 | Free			  -- Return as free
1499

1500
reduceMe :: Inst -> WhatToDo
1501
reduceMe inst = ReduceMe AddSCs
1502

1503
1504
data WantSCs = NoSCs | AddSCs	-- Tells whether we should add the superclasses
				-- of a predicate when adding it to the avails
1505
1506
	-- The reason for this flag is entirely the super-class loop problem
	-- Note [SUPER-CLASS LOOP 1]
1507
\end{code}
1508
1509
1510

%************************************************************************
%*									*
1511
\subsection[reduce]{@reduce@}
1512
%*									*
1513
1514
1515
%************************************************************************


1516
\begin{code}
1517
reduceContext :: RedEnv
1518
	      -> [Inst]			-- Wanted
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
	      -> TcM (ImprovementDone,
		      [Inst],		-- Free
		      TcDictBinds,	-- Dictionary bindings
		      [Inst])		-- Irreducible

reduceContext env wanteds
  = do	{ traceTc (text "reduceContext" <+> (vcat [
1526
	     text "----------------------",
1527
1528
	     red_doc env,
	     text "given" <+> ppr (red_givens env),
1529
1530
	     text "wanted" <+> ppr wanteds,
	     text "----------------------"
1531
	     ]))
1532

1533
        -- Build the Avail mapping from "givens"
1534
	; init_state <- foldlM addGiven emptyAvails (red_givens env)
1535
1536

        -- Do the real work
1537
	; avails <- reduceList env wanteds init_state
1538

1539
1540
	; let improved = availsImproved avails
	; (binds, irreds, frees) <- extractResults avails wanteds
1541

1542
	; traceTc (text "reduceContext end" <+> (vcat [
1543
	     text "----------------------",
1544
1545
	     red_doc env,
	     text "given" <+> ppr (red_givens env),
1546
1547
1548
1549
	     text "wanted" <+> ppr wanteds,
	     text "----",
	     text "avails" <+> pprAvails avails,
	     text "frees" <+> ppr frees,
1550
	     text "improved =" <+> ppr improved,
1551
	     text "----------------------"
1552
	     ]))
1553