Odd ghc error message, “My brain just exploded”?

Question

When I try to pattern-match a GADT in an proc syntax (with Netwire and Vinyl):

sceneRoot = proc inputs -> do
            let (Identity camera :& Identity children) = inputs 
            returnA -< (<*>) (map (rGet draw) children) . pure

I get the (rather odd) compiler error, from ghc-7.6.3

  My brain just exploded
    I can't handle pattern bindings for existential or GADT data constructors.
    Instead, use a case-expression, or do-notation, to unpack the constructor.
    In the pattern: Identity cam :& Identity childs

I get a similar error when I put the pattern in the proc (...) pattern. Why is this? Is it unsound, or just unimplemented?

Answer 1

Consider the GADT

data S a where
  S :: Show a => S a

and the execution of the code

foo :: S a -> a -> String
foo s x = case s of
            S -> show x

In a dictionary-based Haskell implementation, one would expect that the value s is carrying a class dictionary, and that the case extracts the show function from said dictionary so that show x can be performed.

If we execute

foo undefined (\x::Int -> 4::Int)

we get an exception. Operationally, this is expected, because we can not access the dictionary. More in general, case (undefined :: T) of K -> ... is going to produce an error because it forces the evaluation of undefined (provided that T is not a newtype).

Consider now the code (let's pretend that this compiles)

bar :: S a -> a -> String
bar s x = let S = s in show x

and the execution of

bar undefined (\x::Int -> 4::Int)

What should this do? One might argue that it should generate the same exception as with foo. If this were the case, referential transparency would imply that

let S = undefined :: S (Int->Int) in show (\x::Int -> 4::Int)

fails as well with the same exception. This would mean that the let is evaluating the undefined expression, very unlike e.g.

let [] = undefined :: [Int] in 5

which evaluates to 5.

Indeed, the patterns in a let are lazy: they do not force the evaluation of the expression, unlike case. This is why e.g.

let (x,y) = undefined :: (Int,Char) in 5

successfully evaluates to 5.

One might want to make let S = e in e' evaluate e if a show is needed in e', but it feels rather weird. Also, when evaluating let S = e1 ; S = e2 in show ... it would be unclear whether to evaluate e1, e2, or both.

GHC at the moment chooses to forbid all these cases with a simple rule: no lazy patterns when eliminating a GADT.