unboundgenerics v0.4.1 Release Notes
Release Date: 20200511 // almost 4 years ago
โ Add
MonadFail
instances forLFreshMT
andFreshMT
๐ Builds with GHC 8.10
Previous changes from v0.4.0

 ๐ New binding specification type
Ignore
.
Any two
Ignore T
terms will always be alphaequivalent to each other, will be considered to contain no variables, and will not have any substitution apply beneathIgnore
. Useful for attaching annotation terms to your AST.import Text.Parsec.Pos (SourcePos) data Expr = ...  Lambda (Ignore SourcePos) (Bind (Name Expr) Expr)
As expected, any two
Lambda
expressions will be considered alphaequivalent even if they differ in source position.Note that the
Ignore
will block operations onName a
for alla
, which can be a little unexpected:data Ty = TyVar (Name Ty)  TyArr Ty Ty instance Subst Ty Ty where ... data Expr = ...  Var (Name Expr)  Lambda (Ignore Ty) (Bind (Name Expr) Expr) instance Subst Ty Expr
Applying a substitution of a type for a free type variable to a
Lambda
will not descend into theIgnore Ty
.Thanks Reed Mullanix (TOTWBF) for the new operation.
 ๐ Fix an issue in substitution where traversal would not continue in
an AST node for which
isvar
orisCoerceVar
is defined to return nonNothing
but which had additional structure.
For example, in a language with meta variables and explicit substitutions:
data Expr = ...  normal variables that stand for expressions  Var (Name Expr)  a meta variable occurrence and an explicit substitution  of expressions to substitute in for the free variables  MetaVar (Name Meta) [(Name Expr, Expr)]  a meta variable stands for an expression with some free term vars data Meta = MetaVar Expr  substitution for a meta in an expression instance Subst Expr Meta where isCoerceVar (MetaVar u sub) = Just (SubstCoerce u (Just . applyExplicitSubst sub)) applyExplicitSubst :: [(Name Expr, Expr)] > Meta > Expr applyExplicitSubst s (MetaVar e) = substs s e
Given an expression
e1
defined asMetaVar "u" [("x", 10)]
, we may want to substitute aMeta ("x" + "x")
for"u"
to get10 + 10
(that is, we replace"u"
by the expression"x" + "x"
and immediately apply the substitution10
for"x"
).Now suppose we have an expression
e2
defined asMetaVar "v" [("y", e1)]
(that is, an occurrence of meta var "v" together with a substitution ofe1
from above for"y"
). If we again try to substituteMeta ("x" + "x")
for"u"
ine2
, we would expect to getMetaVar "v" [("y", 10 + 10)]
(that is, since "v" is not equal to "u", we leave the meta var alone, but substitute for any occurrences of "u" in the explicit substitution, soe1
becomes10 + 10
as before).The bug in previous versions of
unboundgenerics
was that we would incorrectly leaveMetaVar "v" [("y", e1)]
unchanged as soon as we saw thatisCoerceVar (MetaVar "v" [("y", e1)])
returnedJust (SubstCoerce "u" ...)
where"u" /= "v"
.Thanks Reed Mullanix (TOTWBF) for finding and fixing this issue. https://github.com/lambdageek/unboundgenerics/issues/26
 ๐ New binding specification type