Difference between revisions of "Safe Haskell"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(create page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Safe Haskell is a Haskell language extension. It is described in detail in the ghc user manual (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/safe-haskell.html) and in the Safe Haskell paper (http://community.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/safe-haskell.pdf). Further technical discussion of Safe Haskell is on the GHC Wiki.
+
Safe Haskell is a Haskell language extension. It is described in detail in the ghc user manual (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/safe-haskell.html) and in the Safe Haskell paper (http://community.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/safe-haskell.pdf). Further technical discussion of Safe Haskell is on the GHC Wiki: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SafeHaskell.
   
 
As the Safe Haskell paper describes, it "hardens" the Haskell language by providing five properties: type safety, referential transparency, strict module encapsulation, modular reasoning and semantic consistency.
 
As the Safe Haskell paper describes, it "hardens" the Haskell language by providing five properties: type safety, referential transparency, strict module encapsulation, modular reasoning and semantic consistency.

Revision as of 20:38, 13 July 2012

Safe Haskell is a Haskell language extension. It is described in detail in the ghc user manual (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/safe-haskell.html) and in the Safe Haskell paper (http://community.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/safe-haskell.pdf). Further technical discussion of Safe Haskell is on the GHC Wiki: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SafeHaskell.

As the Safe Haskell paper describes, it "hardens" the Haskell language by providing five properties: type safety, referential transparency, strict module encapsulation, modular reasoning and semantic consistency.

Safe Haskell is *not* magic, and not about catching bugs. It does not ensure that library authors who mark modules as "Trustworthy" are not lying, or incorrect. It does not ensure code inferred safe but in IO cannot perform arbitrary IO. It *does* ensure that untrusted code inferred to be safe will, assuming its "Trustworthy" imports are *indeed* "Trustworthy" obey the above five properties. As such, again assuming "Trustworthy" imports are indeed so, Safe Haskell infers that untrusted code inferred safe and *not* in IO can be run without fear (aside from fear of resource over-utilization/exhaustion).

Most code that most people want to write is going to be Safe Haskell by default. As Simon Marlow has pointed out, "Normally when you use an unsafe feature, the purpose is to use it to implement a safe API - if that's the case, all you have to do is add Trustworthy to your language pragma, and the API is available to use from Safe code. 99% of Hackage should be either Safe or Trustworthy. We know that 27% is already inferred Safe (see the paper), and a lot of the rest is just waiting for other libraries to add Trustworthy where necessary."


Again, as Simon Marlow argues, "For typical Haskell programmers, using {-# LANGUAGE Safe #-} will be like -Wall: something that is considered good practice from a hygeine point of view. If you don't *need* access to unsafe features, then it's better to write in the safe subset, where you have stronger guarantees. Just like -Wall, you get to choose whether to use {-# LANGUAGE Safe #-} or not."