1. 23 Jun, 2017 1 commit
    • Matthew Pickering's avatar
      Use actual universal tvs in check for naughty record selectors · 0e2839a2
      Matthew Pickering authored
      The naughty record selector check means to limit selectors which would
      lead to existential tyvars escaping their scope. With record pattern
      synonyms, there are situations where universal tyvars don't appear in
      the result type, for example:
      
      ```
      pattern ReadP :: Read a => a -> String
      pattern ReadP{readp} <- (read -> readp)
      ```
      
      This is a similar issue to #11224 where we assumed that we can decide
      which variables are universal and which are existential by the syntactic
      check of seeing which appear in the result type. The fix is to use
      `univ_tvs` from `conLikeFullSig` rather than the previous approximation.
      But we must also remember to apply `EqSpec`s so we use the free
      variables from `inst_tys` which is precisely `univ_tvs` with `EqSpecs`
      applied.
      
      Reviewers: austin, bgamari
      
      Reviewed By: bgamari
      
      Subscribers: rwbarton, thomie
      
      Differential Revision: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3649
      
      (cherry picked from commit 90771209)
      0e2839a2
  2. 29 Oct, 2015 1 commit
    • Matthew Pickering's avatar
      Record pattern synonyms · 2a74a64e
      Matthew Pickering authored
      This patch implements an extension to pattern synonyms which allows user
      to specify pattern synonyms using record syntax. Doing so generates
      appropriate selectors and update functions.
      
      === Interaction with Duplicate Record Fields ===
      
      The implementation given here isn't quite as general as it could be with
      respect to the recently-introduced `DuplicateRecordFields` extension.
      
      Consider the following module:
      
          {-# LANGUAGE DuplicateRecordFields #-}
          {-# LANGUAGE PatternSynonyms #-}
      
          module Main where
      
          pattern S{a, b} = (a, b)
          pattern T{a}    = Just a
      
          main = do
            print S{ a = "fst", b = "snd" }
            print T{ a = "a" }
      
      In principle, this ought to work, because there is no ambiguity. But at
      the moment it leads to a "multiple declarations of a" error. The problem
      is that pattern synonym record selectors don't do the same name mangling
      as normal datatypes when DuplicateRecordFields is enabled. They could,
      but this would require some work to track the field label and selector
      name separately.
      
      In particular, we currently represent datatype selectors in the third
      component of AvailTC, but pattern synonym selectors are just represented
      as Avails (because they don't have a corresponding type constructor).
      Moreover, the GlobalRdrElt for a selector currently requires it to have
      a parent tycon.
      
      (example due to Adam Gundry)
      
      === Updating Explicitly Bidirectional Pattern Synonyms ===
      
      Consider the following
      
      ```
      pattern Silly{a} <- [a] where
        Silly a = [a, a]
      
      f1 = a [5] -- 5
      
      f2 = [5] {a = 6} -- currently [6,6]
      ```
      
      === Fixing Polymorphic Updates ===
      
      They were fixed by adding these two lines in `dsExpr`. This might break
      record updates but will be easy to fix.
      
      ```
      + ; let req_wrap = mkWpTyApps (mkTyVarTys univ_tvs)
      
      - , pat_wrap = idHsWrapper }
      +, pat_wrap = req_wrap }
      ```
      
      === Mixed selectors error ===
      
      Note [Mixed Record Field Updates]
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      
      Consider the following pattern synonym.
      
          data MyRec = MyRec { foo :: Int, qux :: String }
      
          pattern HisRec{f1, f2} = MyRec{foo = f1, qux=f2}
      
      This allows updates such as the following
      
          updater :: MyRec -> MyRec
          updater a = a {f1 = 1 }
      
      It would also make sense to allow the following update (which we
      reject).
      
          updater a = a {f1 = 1, qux = "two" } ==? MyRec 1 "two"
      
      This leads to confusing behaviour when the selectors in fact refer the
      same field.
      
          updater a = a {f1 = 1, foo = 2} ==? ???
      
      For this reason, we reject a mixture of pattern synonym and normal
      record selectors in the same update block. Although of course we still
      allow the following.
      
          updater a = (a {f1 = 1}) {foo = 2}
      
          > updater (MyRec 0 "str")
          MyRec 2 "str"
      2a74a64e