purescript
Skip copyRecord for buildFromScratch in Builder
Description of the change
Skip needing to copyRecord for buildFromScratch.
Checklist:
- [X] Added the change to the changelog's "Unreleased" section with a reference to this PR (e.g. "- Made a change (#0000)")
- [ ] Linked any existing issues or proposals that this pull request should close
- [ ] Updated or added relevant documentation
- [ ] Added a test for the contribution (if applicable)
In general, I think it's a little dodgy to reason about allocation and references within PureScript like this, since it's outside the semantics of the language, and there's otherwise no indication in the types what's happening. For example, if an optimization were to lift out the {} to the top-level, since it can be trivially shared, you'd wind up with a broken program, where every call is mutating the same reference.
I'm not necessarily giving a thumbs down, because I think it's likely we have issues like this all over the place in core.
If we follow that line of thought though, perhaps we shouldn't be declaring: newtype Builder a b = Builder (a -> b) as well? Since we're hiding the mutation.
If we follow that line of thought though, perhaps we shouldn't be declaring: newtype Builder a b = Builder (a -> b) as well? Since we're hiding the mutation.
Right, which is why I provided the caveat:
because I think it's likely we have issues like this all over the place in core.
I'm aware that core uses unsafe functions for builder stuff like this, but gives them pure types within PureScript's type system, which is semantically dodgy. It's like declaring type Effect a = Unit -> a, which is technically true, but I don't think anyone would agree it's a good idea.
Perhaps the cleanest representation of Builder would involve ST. My worry is it might not be as efficient.
Alternatively, we can make Builder a foreign type and move everything onto FFI.