I'm messing around with the SPECIALIZE
pragma while trying to find a solution to this problem.
I came up with this example:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
import Data.Vector
import qualified Data.Vector.Generic as V
class Foo a
newtype Phantom m = T Int deriving (Show)
instance (Foo m) => Num (Phantom m)
f :: (Num r, V.Vector v r) => v r -> v r -> v r
{-# SPECIALIZE f :: (Foo m) => Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) #-}
f x y = V.zipWith (+) x y
main = print "hello"
which fails to compile (GHC 7.6.2) because
Forall'd constraint `Foo m' is not bound in RULE lhs
.
Googling only turned up a couple of GHC bug reports from years ago. I didn't see anything about "forall'd constraints" while reading about SPECIALIZE
or RULE
. My specialize signature does seem less polymorphic than the original, and it satisfies the "if-and-only-if" rule.
replace with
{-# SPECIALIZE f :: (Num (Phantom m)) => Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) #-}
and it will work. The r
in Num r
is Phantom m
not m
, thus you can't add the constraint Num m
. This is logical--Num (Phantom m)
does not imply Num m
and you could get other instances under the open world assumption.
EDIT: You actually don't need any constraint at all in this case
{-# SPECIALIZE f :: Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) -> Vector (Phantom m) #-}
anyway, the basic problem if I understand what you are trying to do is that you can't constrain when you perform an optimization based on phantom type parameters.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With