Occasionally, a piece of code I want to write isn't legal without at least one language extension. This is particularly true when trying to implement ideas in research papers, which tend to use whichever spiffy, super-extended version of GHC was available at the time the paper was written, without making it clear which extensions are actually required.
The result is that I often end up with something like this at the top of my .hs files:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies
, MultiParamTypeClasses
, FunctionalDependencies
, FlexibleContexts
, FlexibleInstances
, UndecidableInstances
, OverlappingInstances #-}
I don't mind that, but often I feel as though I'm making blind sacrifices to appease the Great God of GHC. It complains that a certain piece of code isn't valid without language extension X, so I add a pragma for X. Then it demands that I enable Y, so I add a pragma for Y. By the time this finishes, I've enable three or four language extensions that I don't really understand, and I have no idea which ones are 'safe'.
To explain what I mean by 'safe':
I understand that UndecidableInstances
is safe, because although it may cause the compiler to not terminate, as long as the code compiles it won't have unexpected side effects.
On the other hand, OverlappingInstances
is clearly unsafe, because it makes it very easy for me to accidentally write code that gives runtime errors.
So my question is:
Is there a list of GHCextensions which are considered 'safe' and which are 'unsafe'?
See Question&Answers more detail:
os 与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…