typelevel-rewrite-rules
rewrite rules for type-level equalities (by gelisam)
funspection
Type-level function utilities (by thomaseding)
Our great sponsors
| typelevel-rewrite-rules | funspection | |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | - | |
| 61 | 0 | |
| - | - | |
| 1.2 | 0.0 | |
| 4 days ago | over 3 years ago | |
| Haskell | Haskell | |
| LicenseRef-PublicDomain | BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License |
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
typelevel-rewrite-rules
Posts with mentions or reviews of typelevel-rewrite-rules.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2021-09-10.
-
Comparing polymorphic function arguments with GHC
I encountered a similar issue in typelevel-rewrite-rules. The user writes type PlusAssoc a b c = ((a + b) + c) ~ (a + (b + c)) to indicate that they want a type like (2 + x) + 1 to be rewritten to 2 + (x + 1). Thus, I want to be able to look at (2 + x) + 1 and learn that yes, it matches the pattern (a + b) + c, with the substitution a = 2, b = x, c = 1.
-
[ANN/RFC] constraint-rules
Nice! Thanks for including a comparison with my package typelevel-rewrite-rules. Since my package indeed struggles with infinite loops introduced by self-triggering rewrite rules, I would like to better understand why your package doesn't suffer from that same problem.
-
Transpiling to GHC Core language
When writing a typechecker plugin, you can eliminate constraints from the user's program by providing an implementation of the corresponding dictionary. The way you provide that dictionary to ghc is by providing a core expression; for example, this evCast futureDict co expression has type EvTerm, whose first constructor takes an EvExpr, which is a synonym for CoreExpr.
-
[GHC Proposals] GHC Maintainer preview
Until then, I guess we can simply poll. Here's a GitHub Action I wrote today which checks if the latest report for a given package includes a failure: https://github.com/gelisam/typelevel-rewrite-rules/blob/main/.github/workflows/check-hackage-matrix.yml
funspection
Posts with mentions or reviews of funspection.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects.
We haven't tracked posts mentioning funspection yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.
What are some alternatives?
When comparing typelevel-rewrite-rules and funspection you can also consider the following projects:
uom-plugin - Units of measure as a GHC typechecker plugin
type-eq - Type equality evidence you can carry around
ghc-whole-program-compiler-project - GHC Whole Program Compiler and External STG IR tooling
type-level-numbers - Implementation of type level natural and signed integer numbers in haskell using type families.
IdrisExtSTGCodegen
constraint-rules - Extend GHC's type checker with user-defined rules, without writing a type checker plugin.
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs uom-plugin
funspection vs type-eq
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs type-eq
funspection vs uom-plugin
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs ghc-whole-program-compiler-project
funspection vs type-level-numbers
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs IdrisExtSTGCodegen
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs constraint-rules
typelevel-rewrite-rules vs type-level-numbers