Commit 8e8d26ac authored by Simon Peyton Jones's avatar Simon Peyton Jones
Browse files

Comments on TcRnTypes.canDischarge

parent 2d0e1db3
......@@ -1879,7 +1879,8 @@ ctFlavourRole = ctEvFlavourRole . cc_ev
(eqCanRewrite ct1 ct2) holds if the constraint ct1 (a CTyEqCan of form
tv ~ ty) can be used to rewrite ct2. It must satisfy the properties of
a can-rewrite relation, see Definition [Can-rewrite relation]
a can-rewrite relation, see Definition [Can-rewrite relation] in
With the solver handling Coercible constraints like equality constraints,
the rewrite conditions must take role into account, never allowing
......@@ -1905,7 +1906,8 @@ improvement works; see Note [The improvement story] in TcInteract.
However, for now at least I'm only letting (Derived,NomEq) rewrite
(Derived,NomEq) and not doing anything for ReprEq. If we have
eqCanRewriteFR (Derived, NomEq) (Derived, _) = True
then we lose the property of Note [Can-rewrite relation]
then we lose property R2 of Definition [Can-rewrite relation]
in TcSMonad
R2. If f1 >= f, and f2 >= f,
then either f1 >= f2 or f2 >= f1
Consider f1 = (Given, ReprEq)
......@@ -1917,12 +1919,27 @@ we can; straight from the Wanteds during improvment. And from a Derived
ReprEq we could conceivably get a Derived NomEq improvment (by decomposing
a type constructor with Nomninal role), and hence unify.
Note [canRewriteOrSame]
canRewriteOrSame is similar but
* returns True for Wanted/Wanted.
* works for all kinds of constraints, not just CTyEqCans
See the call sites for explanations.
Note [canDischarge]
(x1:c1 `canDischarge` x2:c2) returns True if we can use c1 to
/discharge/ c2; that is, if we can simply drop (x2:c2) altogether,
perhaps adding a binding for x2 in terms of x1. We only ask this
question in two cases:
* Identical equality constraints:
(x1:s~t) `canDischarge` (xs:s~t)
In this case we can just drop x2 in favour of x1.
* Function calls with the same LHS:
(x1:F ts ~ f1) `canDischarge` (x2:F ts ~ f2)
Here we can drop x2 in favour of x1, either unifying
f2 (if it's a flatten meta-var) or adding a new Given
(f1 ~ f2), if x2 is a Given.
This is different from eqCanRewrite; for exammple, a Wanted
can certainly discharge an identical Wanted. So canDicharge
does /not/ define a can-rewrite relation in the sense of
Definition [Can-rewrite relation] in TcSMonad.
eqCanRewrite :: CtEvidence -> CtEvidence -> Bool
......@@ -1939,7 +1956,7 @@ eqCanRewriteFR (Derived, NomEq) (Derived, NomEq) = True
eqCanRewriteFR _ _ = False
canDischarge :: CtEvidence -> CtEvidence -> Bool
-- See Note [canRewriteOrSame]
-- See Note [canDischarge]
canDischarge ev1 ev2 = ctEvFlavourRole ev1 `canDischargeFR` ctEvFlavourRole ev2
canDischargeFR :: CtFlavourRole -> CtFlavourRole -> Bool
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment