glasgow_exts.xml 331 KB
Newer Older
1
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
2 3 4
<para>
<indexterm><primary>language, GHC</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>extensions, GHC</primary></indexterm>
rrt's avatar
rrt committed
5
As with all known Haskell systems, GHC implements some extensions to
6 7
the language.  They are all enabled by options; by default GHC
understands only plain Haskell 98.
8
</para>
rrt's avatar
rrt committed
9

10
<para>
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Some of the Glasgow extensions serve to give you access to the
underlying facilities with which we implement Haskell.  Thus, you can
get at the Raw Iron, if you are willing to write some non-portable
code at a more primitive level.  You need not be &ldquo;stuck&rdquo;
on performance because of the implementation costs of Haskell's
&ldquo;high-level&rdquo; features&mdash;you can always code
&ldquo;under&rdquo; them.  In an extreme case, you can write all your
time-critical code in C, and then just glue it together with Haskell!
19
</para>
rrt's avatar
rrt committed
20

21
<para>
rrt's avatar
rrt committed
22
Before you get too carried away working at the lowest level (e.g.,
23
sloshing <literal>MutableByteArray&num;</literal>s around your
24
program), you may wish to check if there are libraries that provide a
25
&ldquo;Haskellised veneer&rdquo; over the features you want.  The
26 27
separate <ulink url="../libraries/index.html">libraries
documentation</ulink> describes all the libraries that come with GHC.
28
</para>
rrt's avatar
rrt committed
29

30
<!-- LANGUAGE OPTIONS -->
31 32
  <sect1 id="options-language">
    <title>Language options</title>
33

34 35 36 37 38 39
    <indexterm><primary>language</primary><secondary>option</secondary>
    </indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>options</primary><secondary>language</secondary>
    </indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>extensions</primary><secondary>options controlling</secondary>
    </indexterm>
40

41
    <para>The language option flags control what variation of the language are
42
    permitted.  Leaving out all of them gives you standard Haskell
43
    98.</para>
44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
    <para>Language options can be controlled in two ways:
    <itemizedlist>
      <listitem><para>Every language option can switched on by a command-line flag "<option>-X...</option>" 
        (e.g. <option>-XTemplateHaskell</option>), and switched off by the flag "<option>-XNo...</option>"; 
        (e.g. <option>-XNoTemplateHaskell</option>).</para></listitem>
      <listitem><para>
          Language options recognised by Cabal can also be enabled using the <literal>LANGUAGE</literal> pragma,
          thus <literal>{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}</literal> (see <xref linkend="language-pragma"/>). </para>
          </listitem>
      </itemizedlist></para>
55

56
    <para>The flag <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>
57
          <indexterm><primary><option>-fglasgow-exts</option></primary></indexterm>
58
	  is equivalent to enabling the following extensions: 
59
          &what_glasgow_exts_does;
60
	    Enabling these options is the <emphasis>only</emphasis> 
Simon Marlow's avatar
Simon Marlow committed
61
	    effect of <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>.
62 63
          We are trying to move away from this portmanteau flag, 
	  and towards enabling features individually.</para>
64

65
  </sect1>
66

67
<!-- UNBOXED TYPES AND PRIMITIVE OPERATIONS -->
68 69 70
<sect1 id="primitives">
  <title>Unboxed types and primitive operations</title>

71 72
<para>GHC is built on a raft of primitive data types and operations;
"primitive" in the sense that they cannot be defined in Haskell itself.
73 74 75 76 77 78 79
While you really can use this stuff to write fast code,
  we generally find it a lot less painful, and more satisfying in the
  long run, to use higher-level language features and libraries.  With
  any luck, the code you write will be optimised to the efficient
  unboxed version in any case.  And if it isn't, we'd like to know
  about it.</para>

80 81
<para>All these primitive data types and operations are exported by the 
library <literal>GHC.Prim</literal>, for which there is 
82
<ulink url="&libraryGhcPrimLocation;/GHC-Prim.html">detailed online documentation</ulink>.
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
(This documentation is generated from the file <filename>compiler/prelude/primops.txt.pp</filename>.)
</para>
<para>
If you want to mention any of the primitive data types or operations in your
program, you must first import <literal>GHC.Prim</literal> to bring them
into scope.  Many of them have names ending in "&num;", and to mention such
names you need the <option>-XMagicHash</option> extension (<xref linkend="magic-hash"/>).
</para>

<para>The primops make extensive use of <link linkend="glasgow-unboxed">unboxed types</link> 
and <link linkend="unboxed-tuples">unboxed tuples</link>, which
we briefly summarise here. </para>
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
  
<sect2 id="glasgow-unboxed">
<title>Unboxed types
</title>

<para>
<indexterm><primary>Unboxed types (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
</para>

<para>Most types in GHC are <firstterm>boxed</firstterm>, which means
that values of that type are represented by a pointer to a heap
object.  The representation of a Haskell <literal>Int</literal>, for
example, is a two-word heap object.  An <firstterm>unboxed</firstterm>
type, however, is represented by the value itself, no pointers or heap
allocation are involved.
</para>

<para>
Unboxed types correspond to the &ldquo;raw machine&rdquo; types you
would use in C: <literal>Int&num;</literal> (long int),
<literal>Double&num;</literal> (double), <literal>Addr&num;</literal>
(void *), etc.  The <emphasis>primitive operations</emphasis>
(PrimOps) on these types are what you might expect; e.g.,
<literal>(+&num;)</literal> is addition on
<literal>Int&num;</literal>s, and is the machine-addition that we all
know and love&mdash;usually one instruction.
</para>

<para>
Primitive (unboxed) types cannot be defined in Haskell, and are
therefore built into the language and compiler.  Primitive types are
always unlifted; that is, a value of a primitive type cannot be
127 128 129 130 131
bottom.  We use the convention (but it is only a convention) 
that primitive types, values, and
operations have a <literal>&num;</literal> suffix (see <xref linkend="magic-hash"/>).
For some primitive types we have special syntax for literals, also
described in the <link linkend="magic-hash">same section</link>.
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
</para>

<para>
Primitive values are often represented by a simple bit-pattern, such
as <literal>Int&num;</literal>, <literal>Float&num;</literal>,
<literal>Double&num;</literal>.  But this is not necessarily the case:
a primitive value might be represented by a pointer to a
heap-allocated object.  Examples include
<literal>Array&num;</literal>, the type of primitive arrays.  A
primitive array is heap-allocated because it is too big a value to fit
in a register, and would be too expensive to copy around; in a sense,
it is accidental that it is represented by a pointer.  If a pointer
represents a primitive value, then it really does point to that value:
no unevaluated thunks, no indirections&hellip;nothing can be at the
other end of the pointer than the primitive value.
147 148 149
A numerically-intensive program using unboxed types can
go a <emphasis>lot</emphasis> faster than its &ldquo;standard&rdquo;
counterpart&mdash;we saw a threefold speedup on one example.
150 151 152
</para>

<para>
153 154 155 156
There are some restrictions on the use of primitive types:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>The main restriction
is that you can't pass a primitive value to a polymorphic
157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167
function or store one in a polymorphic data type.  This rules out
things like <literal>[Int&num;]</literal> (i.e. lists of primitive
integers).  The reason for this restriction is that polymorphic
arguments and constructor fields are assumed to be pointers: if an
unboxed integer is stored in one of these, the garbage collector would
attempt to follow it, leading to unpredictable space leaks.  Or a
<function>seq</function> operation on the polymorphic component may
attempt to dereference the pointer, with disastrous results.  Even
worse, the unboxed value might be larger than a pointer
(<literal>Double&num;</literal> for instance).
</para>
168
</listitem>
169 170 171 172 173 174 175
<listitem><para> You cannot define a newtype whose representation type
(the argument type of the data constructor) is an unboxed type.  Thus,
this is illegal:
<programlisting>
  newtype A = MkA Int#
</programlisting>
</para></listitem>
176 177 178 179 180 181 182
<listitem><para> You cannot bind a variable with an unboxed type
in a <emphasis>top-level</emphasis> binding.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para> You cannot bind a variable with an unboxed type
in a <emphasis>recursive</emphasis> binding.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para> You may bind unboxed variables in a (non-recursive,
183 184
non-top-level) pattern binding, but you must make any such pattern-match
strict.  For example, rather than:
185 186
<programlisting>
  data Foo = Foo Int Int#
187

188 189
  f x = let (Foo a b, w) = ..rhs.. in ..body..
</programlisting>
190
you must write:
191 192 193
<programlisting>
  data Foo = Foo Int Int#

194
  f x = let !(Foo a b, w) = ..rhs.. in ..body..
195
</programlisting>
196
since <literal>b</literal> has type <literal>Int#</literal>.
197 198 199
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233
</para>

</sect2>

<sect2 id="unboxed-tuples">
<title>Unboxed Tuples
</title>

<para>
Unboxed tuples aren't really exported by <literal>GHC.Exts</literal>,
they're available by default with <option>-fglasgow-exts</option>.  An
unboxed tuple looks like this:
</para>

<para>

<programlisting>
(# e_1, ..., e_n #)
</programlisting>

</para>

<para>
where <literal>e&lowbar;1..e&lowbar;n</literal> are expressions of any
type (primitive or non-primitive).  The type of an unboxed tuple looks
the same.
</para>

<para>
Unboxed tuples are used for functions that need to return multiple
values, but they avoid the heap allocation normally associated with
using fully-fledged tuples.  When an unboxed tuple is returned, the
components are put directly into registers or on the stack; the
unboxed tuple itself does not have a composite representation.  Many
234
of the primitive operations listed in <literal>primops.txt.pp</literal> return unboxed
235
tuples.
236 237
In particular, the <literal>IO</literal> and <literal>ST</literal> monads use unboxed
tuples to avoid unnecessary allocation during sequences of operations.
238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
</para>

<para>
There are some pretty stringent restrictions on the use of unboxed tuples:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>

<para>
246
Values of unboxed tuple types are subject to the same restrictions as
247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
other unboxed types; i.e. they may not be stored in polymorphic data
structures or passed to polymorphic functions.

</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>

<para>
255 256
No variable can have an unboxed tuple type, nor may a constructor or function
argument have an unboxed tuple type.  The following are all illegal:
257 258 259


<programlisting>
260
  data Foo = Foo (# Int, Int #)
261

262 263
  f :: (# Int, Int #) -&#62; (# Int, Int #)
  f x = x
264

265 266
  g :: (# Int, Int #) -&#62; Int
  g (# a,b #) = a
267

268
  h x = let y = (# x,x #) in ...
269 270 271 272 273 274
</programlisting>
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>
<para>
275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294
The typical use of unboxed tuples is simply to return multiple values,
binding those multiple results with a <literal>case</literal> expression, thus:
<programlisting>
  f x y = (# x+1, y-1 #)
  g x = case f x x of { (# a, b #) -&#62; a + b }
</programlisting>
You can have an unboxed tuple in a pattern binding, thus
<programlisting>
  f x = let (# p,q #) = h x in ..body..
</programlisting>
If the types of <literal>p</literal> and <literal>q</literal> are not unboxed,
the resulting binding is lazy like any other Haskell pattern binding.  The 
above example desugars like this:
<programlisting>
  f x = let t = case h x o f{ (# p,q #) -> (p,q)
            p = fst t
            q = snd t
        in ..body..
</programlisting>
Indeed, the bindings can even be recursive.
295 296 297 298 299
</para>

</sect2>
</sect1>

rrt's avatar
rrt committed
300

301 302 303 304 305
<!-- ====================== SYNTACTIC EXTENSIONS =======================  -->

<sect1 id="syntax-extns">
<title>Syntactic extensions</title>
 
Simon Marlow's avatar
Simon Marlow committed
306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322
    <sect2 id="unicode-syntax">
      <title>Unicode syntax</title>
      <para>The language
      extension <option>-XUnicodeSyntax</option><indexterm><primary><option>-XUnicodeSyntax</option></primary></indexterm>
      enables Unicode characters to be used to stand for certain ASCII
      character sequences.  The following alternatives are provided:</para>

      <informaltable>
	<tgroup cols="2" align="left" colsep="1" rowsep="1">
	  <thead>
	    <row>
	      <entry>ASCII</entry>
              <entry>Unicode alternative</entry>
	      <entry>Code point</entry>
	      <entry>Name</entry>
	    </row>
	  </thead>
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331

<!--
               to find the DocBook entities for these characters, find
               the Unicode code point (e.g. 0x2237), and grep for it in
               /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xml-dtd-*/ent/* (or equivalent on
               your system.  Some of these Unicode code points don't have
               equivalent DocBook entities.
            -->

Simon Marlow's avatar
Simon Marlow committed
332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371
	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry><literal>::</literal></entry>
	      <entry>::</entry> <!-- no special char, apparently -->
              <entry>0x2237</entry>
	      <entry>PROPORTION</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>
	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry><literal>=&gt;</literal></entry>
	      <entry>&rArr;</entry>
	      <entry>0x21D2</entry>
              <entry>RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>
	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry><literal>forall</literal></entry>
	      <entry>&forall;</entry>
	      <entry>0x2200</entry>
              <entry>FOR ALL</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>
	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry><literal>-&gt;</literal></entry>
	      <entry>&rarr;</entry>
	      <entry>0x2192</entry>
              <entry>RIGHTWARDS ARROW</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>
	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry><literal>&lt;-</literal></entry>
	      <entry>&larr;</entry>
	      <entry>0x2190</entry>
              <entry>LEFTWARDS ARROW</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry>-&lt;</entry>
	      <entry>&larrtl;</entry>
	      <entry>0x2919</entry>
	      <entry>LEFTWARDS ARROW-TAIL</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>

	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry>&gt;-</entry>
	      <entry>&rarrtl;</entry>
	      <entry>0x291A</entry>
	      <entry>RIGHTWARDS ARROW-TAIL</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>

	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry>-&lt;&lt;</entry>
	      <entry></entry>
	      <entry>0x291B</entry>
	      <entry>LEFTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW-TAIL</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>

	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry>&gt;&gt;-</entry>
	      <entry></entry>
	      <entry>0x291C</entry>
	      <entry>RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW-TAIL</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>

	  <tbody>
	    <row>
	      <entry>*</entry>
	      <entry>&starf;</entry>
	      <entry>0x2605</entry>
	      <entry>BLACK STAR</entry>
	    </row>
          </tbody>

Simon Marlow's avatar
Simon Marlow committed
418 419 420 421
        </tgroup>
      </informaltable>
    </sect2>

422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452
    <sect2 id="magic-hash">
      <title>The magic hash</title>
      <para>The language extension <option>-XMagicHash</option> allows "&num;" as a
	postfix modifier to identifiers.  Thus, "x&num;" is a valid variable, and "T&num;" is
	a valid type constructor or data constructor.</para>

      <para>The hash sign does not change sematics at all.  We tend to use variable
	names ending in "&num;" for unboxed values or types (e.g. <literal>Int&num;</literal>), 
	but there is no requirement to do so; they are just plain ordinary variables.
	Nor does the <option>-XMagicHash</option> extension bring anything into scope.
	For example, to bring <literal>Int&num;</literal> into scope you must 
	import <literal>GHC.Prim</literal> (see <xref linkend="primitives"/>); 
	the <option>-XMagicHash</option> extension
	then allows you to <emphasis>refer</emphasis> to the <literal>Int&num;</literal>
	that is now in scope.</para>
      <para> The <option>-XMagicHash</option> also enables some new forms of literals (see <xref linkend="glasgow-unboxed"/>):
	<itemizedlist> 
	  <listitem><para> <literal>'x'&num;</literal> has type <literal>Char&num;</literal></para> </listitem>
	  <listitem><para> <literal>&quot;foo&quot;&num;</literal> has type <literal>Addr&num;</literal></para> </listitem>
	  <listitem><para> <literal>3&num;</literal> has type <literal>Int&num;</literal>. In general,
	  any Haskell 98 integer lexeme followed by a <literal>&num;</literal> is an <literal>Int&num;</literal> literal, e.g.
            <literal>-0x3A&num;</literal> as well as <literal>32&num;</literal></para>.</listitem>
	  <listitem><para> <literal>3&num;&num;</literal> has type <literal>Word&num;</literal>. In general,
	  any non-negative Haskell 98 integer lexeme followed by <literal>&num;&num;</literal> 
	      is a <literal>Word&num;</literal>. </para> </listitem>
	  <listitem><para> <literal>3.2&num;</literal> has type <literal>Float&num;</literal>.</para> </listitem>
	  <listitem><para> <literal>3.2&num;&num;</literal> has type <literal>Double&num;</literal></para> </listitem>
	  </itemizedlist>
      </para>
   </sect2>

453
    <sect2 id="new-qualified-operators">
454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477
      <title>New qualified operator syntax</title>

      <para>A new syntax for referencing qualified operators is
        planned to be introduced by Haskell', and is enabled in GHC
        with
        the <option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option><indexterm><primary><option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option></primary></indexterm>
        option.  In the new syntax, the prefix form of a qualified
        operator is
        written <literal><replaceable>module</replaceable>.(<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)</literal>
        (in Haskell 98 this would
        be <literal>(<replaceable>module</replaceable>.<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)</literal>),
        and the infix form is
        written <literal>`<replaceable>module</replaceable>.(<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>)`</literal>
        (in Haskell 98 this would
        be <literal>`<replaceable>module</replaceable>.<replaceable>symbol</replaceable>`</literal>.
        For example:
<programlisting>
  add x y = Prelude.(+) x y
  subtract y = (`Prelude.(-)` y)
</programlisting>
        The new form of qualified operators is intended to regularise
        the syntax by eliminating odd cases
        like <literal>Prelude..</literal>.  For example,
        when <literal>NewQualifiedOperators</literal> is on, it is possible to
478
        write the enumerated sequence <literal>[Monday..]</literal>
479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489
        without spaces, whereas in Haskell 98 this would be a
        reference to the operator &lsquo;<literal>.</literal>&lsquo;
        from module <literal>Monday</literal>.</para>

      <para>When <option>-XNewQualifiedOperators</option> is on, the old Haskell
        98 syntax for qualified operators is not accepted, so this
        option may cause existing Haskell 98 code to break.</para>

    </sect2>
        

490 491
    <!-- ====================== HIERARCHICAL MODULES =======================  -->

492

493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522
    <sect2 id="hierarchical-modules">
      <title>Hierarchical Modules</title>

      <para>GHC supports a small extension to the syntax of module
      names: a module name is allowed to contain a dot
      <literal>&lsquo;.&rsquo;</literal>.  This is also known as the
      &ldquo;hierarchical module namespace&rdquo; extension, because
      it extends the normally flat Haskell module namespace into a
      more flexible hierarchy of modules.</para>

      <para>This extension has very little impact on the language
      itself; modules names are <emphasis>always</emphasis> fully
      qualified, so you can just think of the fully qualified module
      name as <quote>the module name</quote>.  In particular, this
      means that the full module name must be given after the
      <literal>module</literal> keyword at the beginning of the
      module; for example, the module <literal>A.B.C</literal> must
      begin</para>

<programlisting>module A.B.C</programlisting>


      <para>It is a common strategy to use the <literal>as</literal>
      keyword to save some typing when using qualified names with
      hierarchical modules.  For example:</para>

<programlisting>
import qualified Control.Monad.ST.Strict as ST
</programlisting>

523 524
      <para>For details on how GHC searches for source and interface
      files in the presence of hierarchical modules, see <xref
525
      linkend="search-path"/>.</para>
526 527

      <para>GHC comes with a large collection of libraries arranged
528 529 530 531 532
      hierarchically; see the accompanying <ulink
      url="../libraries/index.html">library
      documentation</ulink>.  More libraries to install are available
      from <ulink
      url="http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/hackage.html">HackageDB</ulink>.</para>
533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541
    </sect2>

    <!-- ====================== PATTERN GUARDS =======================  -->

<sect2 id="pattern-guards">
<title>Pattern guards</title>

<para>
<indexterm><primary>Pattern guards (Glasgow extension)</primary></indexterm>
542
The discussion that follows is an abbreviated version of Simon Peyton Jones's original <ulink url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/guards.html">proposal</ulink>. (Note that the proposal was written before pattern guards were implemented, so refers to them as unimplemented.)
543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553
</para>

<para>
Suppose we have an abstract data type of finite maps, with a
lookup operation:

<programlisting>
lookup :: FiniteMap -> Int -> Maybe Int
</programlisting>

The lookup returns <function>Nothing</function> if the supplied key is not in the domain of the mapping, and <function>(Just v)</function> otherwise,
554
where <varname>v</varname> is the value that the key maps to.  Now consider the following definition:
555 556 557
</para>

<programlisting>
558
clunky env var1 var2 | ok1 &amp;&amp; ok2 = val1 + val2
559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583
| otherwise  = var1 + var2
where
  m1 = lookup env var1
  m2 = lookup env var2
  ok1 = maybeToBool m1
  ok2 = maybeToBool m2
  val1 = expectJust m1
  val2 = expectJust m2
</programlisting>

<para>
The auxiliary functions are 
</para>

<programlisting>
maybeToBool :: Maybe a -&gt; Bool
maybeToBool (Just x) = True
maybeToBool Nothing  = False

expectJust :: Maybe a -&gt; a
expectJust (Just x) = x
expectJust Nothing  = error "Unexpected Nothing"
</programlisting>

<para>
584
What is <function>clunky</function> doing? The guard <literal>ok1 &amp;&amp;
585 586 587 588
ok2</literal> checks that both lookups succeed, using
<function>maybeToBool</function> to convert the <function>Maybe</function>
types to booleans. The (lazily evaluated) <function>expectJust</function>
calls extract the values from the results of the lookups, and binds the
589
returned values to <varname>val1</varname> and <varname>val2</varname>
590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
respectively.  If either lookup fails, then clunky takes the
<literal>otherwise</literal> case and returns the sum of its arguments.
</para>

<para>
This is certainly legal Haskell, but it is a tremendously verbose and
un-obvious way to achieve the desired effect.  Arguably, a more direct way
to write clunky would be to use case expressions:
</para>

<programlisting>
601
clunky env var1 var2 = case lookup env var1 of
602 603 604 605 606
  Nothing -&gt; fail
  Just val1 -&gt; case lookup env var2 of
    Nothing -&gt; fail
    Just val2 -&gt; val1 + val2
where
Simon Marlow's avatar
Simon Marlow committed
607
  fail = var1 + var2
608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625
</programlisting>

<para>
This is a bit shorter, but hardly better.  Of course, we can rewrite any set
of pattern-matching, guarded equations as case expressions; that is
precisely what the compiler does when compiling equations! The reason that
Haskell provides guarded equations is because they allow us to write down
the cases we want to consider, one at a time, independently of each other. 
This structure is hidden in the case version.  Two of the right-hand sides
are really the same (<function>fail</function>), and the whole expression
tends to become more and more indented. 
</para>

<para>
Here is how I would write clunky:
</para>

<programlisting>
626
clunky env var1 var2
627 628 629 630 631 632 633
  | Just val1 &lt;- lookup env var1
  , Just val2 &lt;- lookup env var2
  = val1 + val2
...other equations for clunky...
</programlisting>

<para>
ross's avatar
ross committed
634
The semantics should be clear enough.  The qualifiers are matched in order. 
635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651
For a <literal>&lt;-</literal> qualifier, which I call a pattern guard, the
right hand side is evaluated and matched against the pattern on the left. 
If the match fails then the whole guard fails and the next equation is
tried.  If it succeeds, then the appropriate binding takes place, and the
next qualifier is matched, in the augmented environment.  Unlike list
comprehensions, however, the type of the expression to the right of the
<literal>&lt;-</literal> is the same as the type of the pattern to its
left.  The bindings introduced by pattern guards scope over all the
remaining guard qualifiers, and over the right hand side of the equation.
</para>

<para>
Just as with list comprehensions, boolean expressions can be freely mixed
with among the pattern guards.  For example:
</para>

<programlisting>
652
f x | [y] &lt;- x
653
    , y > 3
654
    , Just z &lt;- h y
655 656 657 658 659 660 661
    = ...
</programlisting>

<para>
Haskell's current guards therefore emerge as a special case, in which the
qualifier list has just one element, a boolean expression.
</para>
662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695
</sect2>

    <!-- ===================== View patterns ===================  -->

<sect2 id="view-patterns">
<title>View patterns
</title>

<para>
View patterns are enabled by the flag <literal>-XViewPatterns</literal>.
More information and examples of view patterns can be found on the
<ulink url="http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ViewPatterns">Wiki
page</ulink>.
</para>

<para>
View patterns are somewhat like pattern guards that can be nested inside
of other patterns.  They are a convenient way of pattern-matching
against values of abstract types. For example, in a programming language
implementation, we might represent the syntax of the types of the
language as follows:

<programlisting>
type Typ
 
data TypView = Unit
             | Arrow Typ Typ

view :: Type -> TypeView

-- additional operations for constructing Typ's ...
</programlisting>

The representation of Typ is held abstract, permitting implementations
SamB's avatar
SamB committed
696
to use a fancy representation (e.g., hash-consing to manage sharing).
697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789

Without view patterns, using this signature a little inconvenient: 
<programlisting>
size :: Typ -> Integer
size t = case view t of
  Unit -> 1
  Arrow t1 t2 -> size t1 + size t2
</programlisting>

It is necessary to iterate the case, rather than using an equational
function definition. And the situation is even worse when the matching
against <literal>t</literal> is buried deep inside another pattern.
</para>

<para>
View patterns permit calling the view function inside the pattern and
matching against the result: 
<programlisting>
size (view -> Unit) = 1
size (view -> Arrow t1 t2) = size t1 + size t2
</programlisting>

That is, we add a new form of pattern, written
<replaceable>expression</replaceable> <literal>-></literal>
<replaceable>pattern</replaceable> that means "apply the expression to
whatever we're trying to match against, and then match the result of
that application against the pattern". The expression can be any Haskell
expression of function type, and view patterns can be used wherever
patterns are used.
</para>

<para>
The semantics of a pattern <literal>(</literal>
<replaceable>exp</replaceable> <literal>-></literal>
<replaceable>pat</replaceable> <literal>)</literal> are as follows:

<itemizedlist>

<listitem> Scoping:

<para>The variables bound by the view pattern are the variables bound by
<replaceable>pat</replaceable>.
</para>

<para>
Any variables in <replaceable>exp</replaceable> are bound occurrences,
but variables bound "to the left" in a pattern are in scope.  This
feature permits, for example, one argument to a function to be used in
the view of another argument.  For example, the function
<literal>clunky</literal> from <xref linkend="pattern-guards" /> can be
written using view patterns as follows:

<programlisting>
clunky env (lookup env -> Just val1) (lookup env -> Just val2) = val1 + val2
...other equations for clunky...
</programlisting>
</para>

<para>
More precisely, the scoping rules are: 
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
In a single pattern, variables bound by patterns to the left of a view
pattern expression are in scope. For example:
<programlisting>
example :: Maybe ((String -> Integer,Integer), String) -> Bool
example Just ((f,_), f -> 4) = True
</programlisting>

Additionally, in function definitions, variables bound by matching earlier curried
arguments may be used in view pattern expressions in later arguments:
<programlisting>
example :: (String -> Integer) -> String -> Bool
example f (f -> 4) = True
</programlisting>
That is, the scoping is the same as it would be if the curried arguments
were collected into a tuple.  
</para>
</listitem>

<listitem>
<para>
In mutually recursive bindings, such as <literal>let</literal>,
<literal>where</literal>, or the top level, view patterns in one
declaration may not mention variables bound by other declarations.  That
is, each declaration must be self-contained.  For example, the following
program is not allowed:
<programlisting>
let {(x -> y) = e1 ;
     (y -> x) = e2 } in x
</programlisting>

790 791
(For some amplification on this design choice see 
<ulink url="http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4061">Trac #4061</ulink>.)
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

</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>

</para>
</listitem>

<listitem><para> Typing: If <replaceable>exp</replaceable> has type
<replaceable>T1</replaceable> <literal>-></literal>
<replaceable>T2</replaceable> and <replaceable>pat</replaceable> matches
a <replaceable>T2</replaceable>, then the whole view pattern matches a
<replaceable>T1</replaceable>.
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para> Matching: To the equations in Section 3.17.3 of the
<ulink url="http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/">Haskell 98
Report</ulink>, add the following:
<programlisting>
case v of { (e -> p) -> e1 ; _ -> e2 } 
 = 
case (e v) of { p -> e1 ; _ -> e2 }
</programlisting>
That is, to match a variable <replaceable>v</replaceable> against a pattern
<literal>(</literal> <replaceable>exp</replaceable>
<literal>-></literal> <replaceable>pat</replaceable>
<literal>)</literal>, evaluate <literal>(</literal>
<replaceable>exp</replaceable> <replaceable> v</replaceable>
<literal>)</literal> and match the result against
<replaceable>pat</replaceable>.  
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para> Efficiency: When the same view function is applied in
multiple branches of a function definition or a case expression (e.g.,
in <literal>size</literal> above), GHC makes an attempt to collect these
applications into a single nested case expression, so that the view
function is only applied once.  Pattern compilation in GHC follows the
matrix algorithm described in Chapter 4 of <ulink
url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Papers/slpj-book-1987/">The
Implementation of Functional Programming Languages</ulink>.  When the
top rows of the first column of a matrix are all view patterns with the
"same" expression, these patterns are transformed into a single nested
case.  This includes, for example, adjacent view patterns that line up
in a tuple, as in
<programlisting>
f ((view -> A, p1), p2) = e1
f ((view -> B, p3), p4) = e2
</programlisting>
</para>

<para> The current notion of when two view pattern expressions are "the
same" is very restricted: it is not even full syntactic equality.
However, it does include variables, literals, applications, and tuples;
e.g., two instances of <literal>view ("hi", "there")</literal> will be
collected.  However, the current implementation does not compare up to
alpha-equivalence, so two instances of <literal>(x, view x ->
y)</literal> will not be coalesced.
</para>

</listitem>

</itemizedlist>
</para>

856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868
</sect2>

    <!-- ===================== n+k patterns ===================  -->

<sect2 id="n-k-patterns">
<title>n+k patterns</title>
<indexterm><primary><option>-XNoNPlusKPatterns</option></primary></indexterm>

<para>
<literal>n+k</literal> pattern support is enabled by default. To disable
it, you can use the <option>-XNoNPlusKPatterns</option> flag.
</para>

869 870 871 872
</sect2>

    <!-- ===================== Recursive do-notation ===================  -->

873
<sect2 id="recursive-do-notation">
874 875 876 877
<title>The recursive do-notation
</title>

<para>
878
The do-notation of Haskell 98 does not allow <emphasis>recursive bindings</emphasis>,
879 880 881
that is, the variables bound in a do-expression are visible only in the textually following 
code block. Compare this to a let-expression, where bound variables are visible in the entire binding
group. It turns out that several applications can benefit from recursive bindings in
882
the do-notation.  The <option>-XDoRec</option> flag provides the necessary syntactic support.
883 884
</para>
<para>
885
Here is a simple (albeit contrived) example:
886
<programlisting>
887 888 889
{-# LANGUAGE DoRec #-}
justOnes = do { rec { xs &lt;- Just (1:xs) }
              ; return (map negate xs) }
890
</programlisting>
891 892
As you can guess <literal>justOnes</literal> will evaluate to <literal>Just [-1,-1,-1,...</literal>.
</para>
893
<para>
Ian Lynagh's avatar
Ian Lynagh committed
894
The background and motivation for recursive do-notation is described in
895
<ulink url="http://sites.google.com/site/leventerkok/">A recursive do for Haskell</ulink>,
896 897
by Levent Erkok, John Launchbury,
Haskell Workshop 2002, pages: 29-37. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
898 899 900
The theory behind monadic value recursion is explained further in Erkok's thesis
<ulink url="http://sites.google.com/site/leventerkok/erkok-thesis.pdf">Value Recursion in Monadic Computations</ulink>.
However, note that GHC uses a different syntax than the one described in these documents.
901 902
</para>

903 904 905 906 907
<sect3>
<title>Details of recursive do-notation</title>
<para>
The recursive do-notation is enabled with the flag <option>-XDoRec</option> or, equivalently,
the LANGUAGE pragma <option>DoRec</option>.  It introduces the single new keyword "<literal>rec</literal>",
908 909 910 911
which wraps a mutually-recursive group of monadic statements,
producing a single statement.
</para>
<para>Similar to a <literal>let</literal>
912 913
statement, the variables bound in the <literal>rec</literal> are 
visible throughout the <literal>rec</literal> group, and below it.
914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925
For example, compare
<programlisting>
do { a &lt;- getChar              do { a &lt;- getChar                    
   ; let { r1 = f a r2	           ; rec { r1 &lt;- f a r2	
         ; r2 = g r1 }	                 ; r2 &lt;- g r1 }	
   ; return (r1 ++ r2) }          ; return (r1 ++ r2) }
</programlisting>
In both cases, <literal>r1</literal> and <literal>r2</literal> are 
available both throughout the <literal>let</literal> or <literal>rec</literal> block, and
in the statements that follow it.  The difference is that <literal>let</literal> is non-monadic,
while <literal>rec</literal> is monadic.  (In Haskell <literal>let</literal> is 
really <literal>letrec</literal>, of course.)
926
</para>
927
<para>
928 929 930 931 932 933 934
The static and dynamic semantics of <literal>rec</literal> can be described as follows:  
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>
First,
similar to let-bindings, the <literal>rec</literal> is broken into 
minimal recursive groups, a process known as <emphasis>segmentation</emphasis>.
For example:
935
<programlisting>
936 937 938 939
rec { a &lt;- getChar      ===>     a &lt;- getChar
    ; b &lt;- f a c                 rec { b &lt;- f a c
    ; c &lt;- f b a                     ; c &lt;- f b a }
    ; putChar c }                putChar c 
940
</programlisting>
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948
The details of segmentation are described in Section 3.2 of
<ulink url="http://sites.google.com/site/leventerkok/">A recursive do for Haskell</ulink>.
Segmentation improves polymorphism, reduces the size of the recursive "knot", and, as the paper 
describes, also has a semantic effect (unless the monad satisfies the right-shrinking law).
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
Then each resulting <literal>rec</literal> is desugared, using a call to <literal>Control.Monad.Fix.mfix</literal>.
For example, the <literal>rec</literal> group in the preceding example is desugared like this:
simonpj@microsoft.com's avatar
simonpj@microsoft.com committed
949
<programlisting>
950 951 952
rec { b &lt;- f a c     ===>    (b,c) &lt;- mfix (\~(b,c) -> do { b &lt;- f a c
    ; c &lt;- f b a }                                        ; c &lt;- f b a
                                                          ; return (b,c) })
simonpj@microsoft.com's avatar
simonpj@microsoft.com committed
953
</programlisting>
954
In general, the statment <literal>rec <replaceable>ss</replaceable></literal>
955 956
is desugared to the statement
<programlisting>
957
<replaceable>vs</replaceable> &lt;- mfix (\~<replaceable>vs</replaceable> -&gt; do { <replaceable>ss</replaceable>; return <replaceable>vs</replaceable> })
958
</programlisting>
959
where <replaceable>vs</replaceable> is a tuple of the variables bound by <replaceable>ss</replaceable>.
960 961 962
</para><para>
The original <literal>rec</literal> typechecks exactly 
when the above desugared version would do so.  For example, this means that 
963
the variables <replaceable>vs</replaceable> are all monomorphic in the statements
964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975
following the <literal>rec</literal>, because they are bound by a lambda.
</para>
<para>
The <literal>mfix</literal> function is defined in the <literal>MonadFix</literal> 
class, in <literal>Control.Monad.Fix</literal>, thus:
<programlisting>
class Monad m => MonadFix m where
   mfix :: (a -> m a) -> m a
</programlisting>
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
976 977
</para>
<para>
978
Here are some other important points in using the recursive-do notation:
979 980
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>
981 982
It is enabled with the flag <literal>-XDoRec</literal>, which is in turn implied by
<literal>-fglasgow-exts</literal>.
983 984 985
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
986 987
If recursive bindings are required for a monad,
then that monad must be declared an instance of the <literal>MonadFix</literal> class.
988 989 990
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
991 992 993
The following instances of <literal>MonadFix</literal> are automatically provided: List, Maybe, IO. 
Furthermore, the Control.Monad.ST and Control.Monad.ST.Lazy modules provide the instances of the MonadFix class 
for Haskell's internal state monad (strict and lazy, respectively).
994 995 996
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
997 998 999
Like <literal>let</literal> and <literal>where</literal> bindings,
name shadowing is not allowed within a <literal>rec</literal>; 
that is, all the names bound in a single <literal>rec</literal> must
1000 1001 1002
be distinct (Section 3.3 of the paper).
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
1003
It supports rebindable syntax (see <xref linkend="rebindable-syntax"/>).
1004 1005 1006
</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>
1007 1008
</sect3>

1009
<sect3 id="mdo-notation"> <title> Mdo-notation (deprecated) </title>
1010

Ian Lynagh's avatar
Ian Lynagh committed
1011
<para> GHC used to support the flag <option>-XRecursiveDo</option>,
1012
which enabled the keyword <literal>mdo</literal>, precisely as described in
1013
<ulink url="http://sites.google.com/site/leventerkok/">A recursive do for Haskell</ulink>,
1014 1015 1016
but this is now deprecated.  Instead of <literal>mdo { Q; e }</literal>, write
<literal>do { rec Q; e }</literal>.
</para>
1017
<para>
1018 1019 1020 1021
Historical note: The old implementation of the mdo-notation (and most
of the existing documents) used the name
<literal>MonadRec</literal> for the class and the corresponding library.
This name is not supported by GHC.
1022
</para>
1023
</sect3>
1024

1025 1026 1027
</sect2>


1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046
   <!-- ===================== PARALLEL LIST COMPREHENSIONS ===================  -->

  <sect2 id="parallel-list-comprehensions">
    <title>Parallel List Comprehensions</title>
    <indexterm><primary>list comprehensions</primary><secondary>parallel</secondary>
    </indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>parallel list comprehensions</primary>
    </indexterm>

    <para>Parallel list comprehensions are a natural extension to list
    comprehensions.  List comprehensions can be thought of as a nice
    syntax for writing maps and filters.  Parallel comprehensions
    extend this to include the zipWith family.</para>

    <para>A parallel list comprehension has multiple independent
    branches of qualifier lists, each separated by a `|' symbol.  For
    example, the following zips together two lists:</para>

<programlisting>
1047
   [ (x, y) | x &lt;- xs | y &lt;- ys ] 
1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059
</programlisting>

    <para>The behavior of parallel list comprehensions follows that of
    zip, in that the resulting list will have the same length as the
    shortest branch.</para>

    <para>We can define parallel list comprehensions by translation to
    regular comprehensions.  Here's the basic idea:</para>

    <para>Given a parallel comprehension of the form: </para>

<programlisting>
1060 1061
   [ e | p1 &lt;- e11, p2 &lt;- e12, ... 
       | q1 &lt;- e21, q2 &lt;- e22, ... 
1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068
       ... 
   ] 
</programlisting>

    <para>This will be translated to: </para>

<programlisting>
1069 1070
   [ e | ((p1,p2), (q1,q2), ...) &lt;- zipN [(p1,p2) | p1 &lt;- e11, p2 &lt;- e12, ...] 
                                         [(q1,q2) | q1 &lt;- e21, q2 &lt;- e22, ...] 
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077
                                         ... 
   ] 
</programlisting>

    <para>where `zipN' is the appropriate zip for the given number of
    branches.</para>

1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092
  </sect2>
  
  <!-- ===================== TRANSFORM LIST COMPREHENSIONS ===================  -->

  <sect2 id="generalised-list-comprehensions">
    <title>Generalised (SQL-Like) List Comprehensions</title>
    <indexterm><primary>list comprehensions</primary><secondary>generalised</secondary>
    </indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>extended list comprehensions</primary>
    </indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>group</primary></indexterm>
    <indexterm><primary>sql</primary></indexterm>


    <para>Generalised list comprehensions are a further enhancement to the
Ian Lynagh's avatar
Ian Lynagh committed
1093
    list comprehension syntactic sugar to allow operations such as sorting
1094 1095 1096 1097
    and grouping which are familiar from SQL.   They are fully described in the
	paper <ulink url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/list-comp">
	  Comprehensive comprehensions: comprehensions with "order by" and "group by"</ulink>,
    except that the syntax we use differs slightly from the paper.</para>
1098
<para>The extension is enabled with the flag <option>-XTransformListComp</option>.</para>
1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123
<para>Here is an example: 
<programlisting>
employees = [ ("Simon", "MS", 80)
, ("Erik", "MS", 100)
, ("Phil", "Ed", 40)
, ("Gordon", "Ed", 45)
, ("Paul", "Yale", 60)]

output = [ (the dept, sum salary)
| (name, dept, salary) &lt;- employees
, then group by dept
, then sortWith by (sum salary)
, then take 5 ]
</programlisting>
In this example, the list <literal>output</literal> would take on 
    the value:
    
<programlisting>
[("Yale", 60), ("Ed", 85), ("MS", 180)]
</programlisting>
</para>
<para>There are three new keywords: <literal>group</literal>, <literal>by</literal>, and <literal>using</literal>.
(The function <literal>sortWith</literal> is not a keyword; it is an ordinary
function that is exported by <literal>GHC.Exts</literal>.)</para>

SamB's avatar
SamB committed
1124
<para>There are five new forms of comprehension qualifier,
1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133
all introduced by the (existing) keyword <literal>then</literal>:
    <itemizedlist>
    <listitem>
    
<programlisting>
then f
</programlisting>

    This statement requires that <literal>f</literal> have the type <literal>
Ian Lynagh's avatar
Ian Lynagh committed
1134
    forall a. [a] -> [a]</literal>. You can see an example of its use in the
1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170
    motivating example, as this form is used to apply <literal>take 5</literal>.
    
    </listitem>
    
    
    <listitem>
<para>
<programlisting>
then f by e
</programlisting>

    This form is similar to the previous one, but allows you to create a function
    which will be passed as the first argument to f. As a consequence f must have 
    the type <literal>forall a. (a -> t) -> [a] -> [a]</literal>. As you can see
    from the type, this function lets f &quot;project out&quot; some information 
    from the elements of the list it is transforming.</para>

    <para>An example is shown in the opening example, where <literal>sortWith</literal> 
    is supplied with a function that lets it find out the <literal>sum salary</literal> 
    for any item in the list comprehension it transforms.</para>

    </listitem>


    <listitem>

<programlisting>
then group by e using f
</programlisting>

    <para>This is the most general of the grouping-type statements. In this form,
    f is required to have type <literal>forall a. (a -> t) -> [a] -> [[a]]</literal>.
    As with the <literal>then f by e</literal> case above, the first argument
    is a function supplied to f by the compiler which lets it compute e on every
    element of the list being transformed. However, unlike the non-grouping case,
    f additionally partitions the list into a number of sublists: this means that
SamB's avatar
SamB committed
1171
    at every point after this statement, binders occurring before it in the comprehension
1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206
    refer to <emphasis>lists</emphasis> of possible values, not single values. To help understand
    this, let's look at an example:</para>
    
<programlisting>
-- This works similarly to groupWith in GHC.Exts, but doesn't sort its input first
groupRuns :: Eq b => (a -> b) -> [a] -> [[a]]
groupRuns f = groupBy (\x y -> f x == f y)

output = [ (the x, y)
| x &lt;- ([1..3] ++ [1..2])
, y &lt;- [4..6]
, then group by x using groupRuns ]
</programlisting>

    <para>This results in the variable <literal>output</literal> taking on the value below:</para>

<programlisting>
[(1, [4, 5, 6]), (2, [4, 5, 6]), (3, [4, 5, 6]), (1, [4, 5, 6]), (2, [4, 5, 6])]
</programlisting>

    <para>Note that we have used the <literal>the</literal> function to change the type 
    of x from a list to its original numeric type. The variable y, in contrast, is left 
    unchanged from the list form introduced by the grouping.</para>

    </listitem>

    <listitem>

<programlisting>
then group by e
</programlisting>

    <para>This form of grouping is essentially the same as the one described above. However,
    since no function to use for the grouping has been supplied it will fall back on the
    <literal>groupWith</literal> function defined in 
1207
    <ulink url="&libraryBaseLocation;/GHC-Exts.html"><literal>GHC.Exts</literal></ulink>. This
1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238
    is the form of the group statement that we made use of in the opening example.</para>

    </listitem>
    
    
    <listitem>

<programlisting>
then group using f
</programlisting>

    <para>With this form of the group statement, f is required to simply have the type
    <literal>forall a. [a] -> [[a]]</literal>, which will be used to group up the
    comprehension so far directly. An example of this form is as follows:</para>
    
<programlisting>
output = [ x
| y &lt;- [1..5]
, x &lt;- "hello"
, then group using inits]
</programlisting>

    <para>This will yield a list containing every prefix of the word "hello" written out 5 times:</para>

<programlisting>
["","h","he","hel","hell","hello","helloh","hellohe","hellohel","hellohell","hellohello","hellohelloh",...]
</programlisting>

    </listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>
1239 1240
  </sect2>

1241 1242
   <!-- ===================== REBINDABLE SYNTAX ===================  -->

1243
<sect2 id="rebindable-syntax">
1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257
<title>Rebindable syntax and the implicit Prelude import</title>

 <para><indexterm><primary>-XNoImplicitPrelude
 option</primary></indexterm> GHC normally imports
 <filename>Prelude.hi</filename> files for you.  If you'd
 rather it didn't, then give it a
 <option>-XNoImplicitPrelude</option> option.  The idea is
 that you can then import a Prelude of your own.  (But don't
 call it <literal>Prelude</literal>; the Haskell module
 namespace is flat, and you must not conflict with any
 Prelude module.)</para>

            <para>Suppose you are importing a Prelude of your own
	      in order to define your own numeric class
1258 1259 1260
            hierarchy.  It completely defeats that purpose if the
            literal "1" means "<literal>Prelude.fromInteger
            1</literal>", which is what the Haskell Report specifies.
1261 1262
            So the <option>-XRebindableSyntax</option> 
	      flag causes
1263 1264
            the following pieces of built-in syntax to refer to
            <emphasis>whatever is in scope</emphasis>, not the Prelude
1265
            versions:
1266 1267
	    <itemizedlist>
	      <listitem>
1268 1269 1270 1271
		<para>An integer literal <literal>368</literal> means
                "<literal>fromInteger (368::Integer)</literal>", rather than
                "<literal>Prelude.fromInteger (368::Integer)</literal>".
</para> </listitem>	    
1272

1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285
      <listitem><para>Fractional literals are handed in just the same way,
	  except that the translation is 
	      <literal>fromRational (3.68::Rational)</literal>.
</para> </listitem>	    

	  <listitem><para>The equality test in an overloaded numeric pattern
	      uses whatever <literal>(==)</literal> is in scope.
</para> </listitem>	    

	  <listitem><para>The subtraction operation, and the
	  greater-than-or-equal test, in <literal>n+k</literal> patterns
	      use whatever <literal>(-)</literal> and <literal>(>=)</literal> are in scope.
	      </para></listitem>
1286 1287

	      <listitem>
1288 1289 1290 1291
		<para>Negation (e.g. "<literal>- (f x)</literal>")
		means "<literal>negate (f x)</literal>", both in numeric
		patterns, and expressions.
	      </para></listitem>
1292

1293 1294 1295 1296 1297
	      <listitem>
		<para>Conditionals (e.g. "<literal>if</literal> e1 <literal>then</literal> e2 <literal>else</literal> e3")
		means "<literal>ifThenElse</literal> e1 e2 e3".  However <literal>case</literal> expressions are unaffected.
	      </para></listitem>

1298 1299 1300
	      <listitem>
	  <para>"Do" notation is translated using whatever
	      functions <literal>(>>=)</literal>,
1301 1302 1303
	      <literal>(>>)</literal>, and <literal>fail</literal>,
	      are in scope (not the Prelude
	      versions).  List comprehensions, mdo (<xref linkend="mdo-notation"/>), and parallel array
1304
	      comprehensions, are unaffected.  </para></listitem>
ross's avatar
ross committed
1305 1306

	      <listitem>
1307
		<para>Arrow
ross's avatar
ross committed
1308 1309 1310 1311
		notation (see <xref linkend="arrow-notation"/>)
		uses whatever <literal>arr</literal>,
		<literal>(>>>)</literal>, <literal>first</literal>,
		<literal>app</literal>, <literal>(|||)</literal> and
1312 1313 1314 1315 1316
		<literal>loop</literal> functions are in scope. But unlike the
		other constructs, the types of these functions must match the
		Prelude types very closely.  Details are in flux; if you want
		to use this, ask!
	      </para></listitem>
1317
	    </itemizedlist>
1318 1319 1320
<option>-XRebindableSyntax</option> implies <option>-XNoImplicitPrelude</option>.
</para>
<para>
1321
In all cases (apart from arrow notation), the static semantics should be that of the desugared form,
SamB's avatar
SamB committed
1322
even if that is a little unexpected. For example, the 
1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333
static semantics of the literal <literal>368</literal>
is exactly that of <literal>fromInteger (368::Integer)</literal>; it's fine for
<literal>fromInteger</literal> to have any of the types:
<programlisting>
fromInteger :: Integer -> Integer
fromInteger :: forall a. Foo a => Integer -> a
fromInteger :: Num a => a -> Integer
fromInteger :: Integer -> Bool -> Bool
</programlisting>
</para>
	        
ross's avatar
ross committed
1334 1335 1336 1337
	     <para>Be warned: this is an experimental facility, with
	     fewer checks than usual.  Use <literal>-dcore-lint</literal>
	     to typecheck the desugared program.  If Core Lint is happy
	     you should be all right.</para>
1338 1339

</sect2>
1340 1341 1342 1343 1344

<sect2 id="postfix-operators">
<title>Postfix operators</title>

<para>
1345 1346 1347
  The <option>-XPostfixOperators</option> flag enables a small
extension to the syntax of left operator sections, which allows you to
define postfix operators.  The extension is this: the left section
1348 1349
<programlisting>
  (e !)
1350
</programlisting>
1351 1352 1353
is equivalent (from the point of view of both type checking and execution) to the expression
<programlisting>
  ((!) e)
1354
</programlisting>
1355 1356 1357 1358
(for any expression <literal>e</literal> and operator <literal>(!)</literal>.
The strict Haskell 98 interpretation is that the section is equivalent to
<programlisting>
  (\y -> (!) e y)
1359
</programlisting>
1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368
That is, the operator must be a function of two arguments.  GHC allows it to
take only one argument, and that in turn allows you to write the function
postfix.
</para>
<para>The extension does not extend to the left-hand side of function
definitions; you must define such a function in prefix form.</para>

</sect2>

1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 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
<sect2 id="tuple-sections">
<title>Tuple sections</title>

<para>
  The <option>-XTupleSections</option> flag enables Python-style partially applied
  tuple constructors. For example, the following program
<programlisting>
  (, True)
</programlisting>
  is considered to be an alternative notation for the more unwieldy alternative
<programlisting>
  \x -> (x, True)
</programlisting>
You can omit any combination of arguments to the tuple, as in the following
<programlisting>
  (, "I", , , "Love", , 1337)
</programlisting>
which translates to
<programlisting>
  \a b c d -> (a, "I", b, c, "Love", d, 1337)
</programlisting>
</para>

<para>
  If you have <link linkend="unboxed-tuples">unboxed tuples</link> enabled, tuple sections
  will also be available for them, like so
<programlisting>
  (# , True #)
</programlisting>
Because there is no unboxed unit tuple, the following expression
<programlisting>
  (# #)
</programlisting>
continues to stand for the unboxed singleton tuple data constructor.
</para>

</sect2>

1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437
<sect2 id="disambiguate-fields">
<title>Record field disambiguation</title>
<para>
In record construction and record pattern matching
it is entirely unambiguous which field is referred to, even if there are two different
data types in scope with a common field name.  For example:
<programlisting>
module M where
  data S = MkS { x :: Int, y :: Bool }

module Foo where
  import M

  data T = MkT { x :: Int }
  
  ok1 (MkS { x = n }) = n+1   -- Unambiguous
  ok2 n = MkT { x = n+1 }     -- Unambiguous

  bad1 k = k { x = 3 }  -- Ambiguous
  bad2 k = x k          -- Ambiguous
</programlisting>
Even though there are two <literal>x</literal>'s in scope,
it is clear that the <literal>x</literal> in the pattern in the
definition of <literal>ok1</literal> can only mean the field
<literal>x</literal> from type <literal>S</literal>. Similarly for
the function <literal>ok2</literal>.  However, in the record update
in <literal>bad1</literal> and the record selection in <literal>bad2</literal>
it is not clear which of the two types is intended.
</para>
<para>
Haskell 98 regards all four as ambiguous, but with the
1438
<option>-XDisambiguateRecordFields</option> flag, GHC will accept
1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446
the former two.  The rules are precisely the same as those for instance
declarations in Haskell 98, where the method names on the left-hand side 
of the method bindings in an instance declaration refer unambiguously
to the method of that class (provided they are in scope at all), even
if there are other variables in scope with the same name.
This reduces the clutter of qualified names when you import two
records from different modules that use the same field name.
</para>
1447 1448 1449 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
<para>
Some details:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>
Field disambiguation can be combined with punning (see <xref linkend="record-puns"/>). For exampe:
<programlisting>
module Foo where
  import M
  x=True
  ok3 (MkS { x }) = x+1   -- Uses both disambiguation and punning
</programlisting>
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
With <option>-XDisambiguateRecordFields</option> you can use <emphasis>unqualifed</emphasis>
field names even if the correponding selector is only in scope <emphasis>qualified</emphasis>
For example, assuming the same module <literal>M</literal> as in our earlier example, this is legal:
<programlisting>
module Foo where
  import qualified M    -- Note qualified

  ok4 (M.MkS { x = n }) = n+1   -- Unambiguous
</programlisting>
Since the constructore <literal>MkS</literal> is only in scope qualified, you must
name it <literal>M.MkS</literal>, but the field <literal>x</literal> does not need
to be qualified even though <literal>M.x</literal> is in scope but <literal>x</literal>
is not.  (In effect, it is qualified by the constructor.)
</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>

1478
</sect2>
1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486

    <!-- ===================== Record puns ===================  -->

<sect2 id="record-puns">
<title>Record puns
</title>

<para>
1487
Record puns are enabled by the flag <literal>-XNamedFieldPuns</literal>.
1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513
</para>

<para>
When using records, it is common to write a pattern that binds a
variable with the same name as a record field, such as:

<programlisting>
data C = C {a :: Int}
f (C {a = a}) = a
</programlisting>
</para>

<para>
Record punning permits the variable name to be elided, so one can simply
write

<programlisting>
f (C {a}) = a
</programlisting>

to mean the same pattern as above.  That is, in a record pattern, the
pattern <literal>a</literal> expands into the pattern <literal>a =
a</literal> for the same name <literal>a</literal>.  
</para>

<para>
1514 1515 1516
Note that:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>
1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524
Record punning can also be used in an expression, writing, for example,
<programlisting>
let a = 1 in C {a}
</programlisting>
instead of 
<programlisting>
let a = 1 in C {a = a}
</programlisting>
1525
The expansion is purely syntactic, so the expanded right-hand side
1526 1527
expression refers to the nearest enclosing variable that is spelled the
same as the field name.
1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
Puns and other patterns can be mixed in the same record:
<programlisting>
data C = C {a :: Int, b :: Int}
f (C {a, b = 4}) = a
</programlisting>
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
Puns can be used wherever record patterns occur (e.g. in
<literal>let</literal> bindings or at the top-level).  
</para></listitem>

<listitem><para>
A pun on a qualified field name is expanded by stripping off the module qualifier.
For example:
<programlisting>
f (C {M.a}) = a
</programlisting>
means
<programlisting>
f (M.C {M.a = a}) = a
</programlisting>
(This is useful if the field selector <literal>a</literal> for constructor <literal>M.C</literal>
is only in scope in qualified form.)
</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
1557 1558
</para>

1559

1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569
</sect2>

    <!-- ===================== Record wildcards ===================  -->

<sect2 id="record-wildcards">
<title>Record wildcards
</title>

<para>
Record wildcards are enabled by the flag <literal>-XRecordWildCards</literal>.
1570
This flag implies <literal>-XDisambiguateRecordFields</literal>.
1571 1572 1573 1574 1575