|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2014-07-26 01:07 CEST|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0006330||OCaml||OCaml typing||public||2014-02-18 17:44||2014-07-16 18:26|
|Target Version||after-4.02.0||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0006330: Wrong location for error with polymorphic variant patterns|
|Description||The following error should really be located at the second case:|
# let f (x: [< `Foo of int | `Bar of float]) =
match x with
`Foo x -> x
| `Baz -> 1
| _ -> 0;;
`Foo x -> x
Error: This pattern matches values of type [> `Baz | `Foo of 'a ]
but a pattern was expected which matches values of type
[< `Bar of float | `Foo of int ]
The second variant type does not allow tag(s) `Baz
|Tags||No tags attached.|
edited on: 2014-02-23 19:03
I did a bit of work to understand where the issue comes from -- and found out that it was not easily fixable. This will probably be obvious to Leo and Jacques, but I'll still summarize the issue in case anyone is interested.
The error location comes from the way pattern-matching of polymorphic variants are type-checked. First, the type of all the branches are unified together -- and passed through a bit of variant-pressuring magic I don't understand. Then, they are unified with the type of the pattern scrutinee. In this example, unifying both patterns together gives them *both* a type of the form [> `Foo of '_a | `Baz ]. When the `Foo pattern is then unified with the type [< `Foo of int | `Bar of float], you get an error (located at `Foo) about the type `Baz not being possible.
For someone like me that is not familiar with type inference of polymorphic variants, it's not obvious why it wouldn't work to first unify each branch with (an instance of) the scrutinee's type, and then unify the branch together -- a clash between one of the branch and the scrutinee would then be reported where expected. However, doing this does not work (and the implementation is very clear about the fact that the existing order is intended) on some other examples; for example,
fun x -> match (x : [< `A ]) with `A | `B -> ();;
is accepted by the current type-checking technique (with a warning about the `B being dead code), but would be rejected by trying to unify `B's type with [< `A ].
TL;DR: it's not a silly typo in the location-handling code, it's something subtle about type-checking of polymorphic variants, that is probably not going to change soon - or it needs an expert.
|2014-02-18 17:44||lpw25||New Issue|
|2014-02-23 19:00||gasche||Note Added: 0010970|
|2014-02-23 19:02||gasche||Note Edited: 0010970||View Revisions|
|2014-02-23 19:02||gasche||Status||new => acknowledged|
|2014-02-23 19:03||gasche||Note Edited: 0010970||View Revisions|
|2014-07-16 18:26||doligez||Target Version||=> after-4.02.0|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group|