What happens to missing type variables in Church-style core?
This is a bit esoteric, but maddening. In an answer to another question, I noted that in this entirely valid program
poo :: String -> a -> a
poo _ = id
qoo :: (a -> a) -> String
qoo _ = ""
roo :: String -> String
roo = qoo . poo
the type variable a
is neither solved nor generalized in the process of checking roo
. I'm wondering what happens in the translation to GHC's core language, a Church-style variant of System F. Let me spell things out longhand, with explicit type lambdas /\
and type applications @
.
poo :: forall a. [Char] -> a -> a
poo = /\ a -> \ s x -> id @ a
qoo :: forall a. (a -> a) -> [Char]
qoo = /\ a -> \ f -> [] @ Char
roo :: [Char] -> [Char]
roo = (.) @ [Char] @ (? -> ?) @ [Char] (qoo @ ?) (poo @ ?)
What on earth goes in the ?
places? How does roo
become a valid core term? Or do we really get a mysterious vacuous quantifier, despite what the type signature says?
roo :: forall a. [Char] -> [Char]
roo = /\ a -> ...
I've just checked that
roo :: forall . String -> String
roo = qoo . poo
goes through ok, which may or may not mean t开发者_开发技巧hat the thing typechecks with no extra quantification.
What's happening down there?
Here's the core generated by GHC (after adding some NOINLINE
pragmas).
qoo_rbu :: forall a_abz. (a_abz -> a_abz) -> GHC.Base.String
[GblId, Arity=1, Caf=NoCafRefs]
qoo_rbu = \ (@ a_abN) _ -> GHC.Types.[] @ GHC.Types.Char
poo_rbs :: forall a_abA. GHC.Base.String -> a_abA -> a_abA
[GblId, Arity=1]
poo_rbs = \ (@ a_abP) _ -> GHC.Base.id @ a_abP
roo_rbw :: GHC.Base.String -> GHC.Base.String
[GblId]
roo_rbw =
GHC.Base..
@ (GHC.Prim.Any -> GHC.Prim.Any)
@ GHC.Base.String
@ GHC.Base.String
(qoo_rbu @ GHC.Prim.Any)
(poo_rbs @ GHC.Prim.Any)
It seems GHC.Prim.Any
is used for the polymorphic type.
From the docs (emphasis mine):
The type constructor
Any
is type to which you can unsafely coerce any lifted type, and back.
- It is lifted, and hence represented by a pointer
- It does not claim to be a data type, and that's important for the code generator, because the code gen may enter a data value but never enters a function value.
It's also used to instantiate un-constrained type variables after type checking.
It makes sense to have such a type to insert in place of un-constrained types, as otherwise trivial expressions like length []
would cause an ambiguous type error.
This is a non-problem. In the signature of roo, the type variable a just does not appear as it stands. An easier example would be the expression
const 1 id
where
id :: forall a.a->a
精彩评论