Îõ³h$‰„&      !"#$% Safe-Inferred'(./25?ÅÉÔÖ×Ùàìä&'()*+,-None'(./25?ÅÉÔÖ×Ùàìfpolysemy-pluginData kind for ..polysemy-pluginÎAll of the things from "polysemy" that we need access to in the plugin. When l ~ 'Locations0, each of these is just a pair of strings. When  l ~ 'Things(, it's actually references to the stuff. polysemy-pluginLookup all of the .   None'(./25?ÅÉÔÖ×Ùàì ¼ polysemy-plugin/ s don't have 0 or 1‡ instances by default, even though there are functions in GHC that implement these operations. This newtype gives us those instances.polysemy-plugin>A wrapper for two types that we want to say have been unified.polysemy-plugin corresponds to whether we are only trying to solve a single MemberÆ constraint right now. If so, we *must* produce a unification wanted.polysemy-plugin­Depending on the context in which we're solving a constraint, we may or may not want to force a unification of effects. For example, when defining user code whose type is Member (State Int) r => ... , if we see get :: Sem r s, we should unify s ~ Int.polysemy-pluginÄDetermine whether or not two effects are unifiable. This is nuanced.There are several cases: ý[W] €D e1. e1 [G] €D e2. e2 Always fails, because we never want to unify two effects if effect names are polymorphic.å[W] State s [G] State Int Always succeeds. It's safe to take our given as a fundep annotation.Ý[W] State Int [G] State s (when the [G] is a given that comes from a type signature)?This should fail, because it means we wrote the type signature Member (State s) r => ..., but are trying to use s as an Int. Clearly bogus! Ù[W] State Int [G] State s (when the [G] was generated by running an interpreter)ëSometimes OK, but only if the [G] is the only thing we're trying to solve right now. Consider the case:,runState 5 $ pure @(Sem (State Int ': r)) ()¥Here we have [G] forall a. Num a => State a and [W] State Int. Clearly the typechecking should flow "backwards" here, out of the row and into the type of runState.>What happens if there are multiple [G]s in scope for the same r³? Then we'd emit multiple unification constraints for the same effect but with different polymorphic variables, which would unify a bunch of effects that shouldn't be!polysemy-pluginA non-recursive version of .polysemy-pluginéFilter out the unifications we've already emitted, and then give back the things we should put into the S.Set Unification*, and the new constraints we should emit.polysemy-pluginwantedpolysemy-plugingiven   Safe-Inferred'(./25?ÅÉÔÖ×Ùàì!polysemy-plugin>Returns the head of the list iff there is exactly one element."polysemy-pluginLike , but in the context of an 3.#polysemy-pluginCount the number of times a is present in the list.!"#!"#None&'(./25?ÅÉÎÔÖ×ÙàìD$$None'(./25?ÅÉÔÖ×Ùàì~%%4       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:89;8<=>?@Á.polysemy-plugin-0.3.0.0-4q5eRZdabXBGZEJ6N2ZrTTPolysemy.Plugin.Fundep.Stuff"Polysemy.Plugin.Fundep.UnificationPolysemy.Plugin.Fundep.UtilsPolysemy.Plugin.FundepPolysemy.PluginPaths_polysemy_plugin Control.Monadwhen LookupState LocationsThings PolysemyStuff findClasssemTyCon ifStuckTyConlocateEffectTyCon polysemyStuff$fCanLookupTyCon$fCanLookupClassOrdType getOrdType Unification _unifyLHS _unifyRHS SolveContext FunctionDefInterpreterUse mustUnifycanUnifyRecursivecanUnifyunzipNewWanteds $fOrdOrdType $fEqOrdType$fEqUnification$fOrdUnification$fEqSolveContext$fOrdSolveContext$fShowSolveContextsingleListToJustwhenA countLength fundepPluginpluginversion getBinDir getLibDir getDynLibDir getDataDir getLibexecDir getSysconfDirgetDataFileNameThingOfghcTyCoRepTypeghc-prim GHC.ClassesEqOrd GHC.TypesBoolbaseGHC.Base Alternative