In the paper "Higher-order Type-level Programming in Haskell", an f :: Type -> Type is defined to be "generative" in the following way:
Definition (Generativity). f is generative ⇔ f a ~ g b ⇒ f ~ g
I'm going to explicitly write out the intended quantification as I understand it:
type IsGenerative :: (Type -> Type) -> Constraint
class (forall g a b. f a ~ g b => f ~ g) => IsGenerative f
Conversely, in words:
F :: Type -> Type is generative if there is no G :: Type -> Type besides F such that there exist A, B :: Type for which F A ~ G B
The paper goes on to make a statement about the generativity of unsaturated type-families (they're not generative). To my understanding, in order to be able to form the proposition of whether or not unsaturated type-families are generative, the variables f, g :: Type -> Type should range over type-families as well as type constructors. Note that this means the ~ in f ~ g must represent some more abstract sense of definitional equality than GHC's (~) :: (Type -> Type) -> (Type -> Type) -> Constraint, which cannot be applied to unsaturated type families.
Now here's the problem: it doesn't seem like anything is generative. You'd expect that a datatype constructor like Maybe :: Type -> Type would be generative, but I can easily construct a distinct type family G :: Type -> Type and A, B :: Type for which F A ~ G B (despite F /~ G).
type G :: Type -> Type
type family G a
where
G _ = Maybe Int
data Dict c
where
Dict :: c => Dict c
lhs :: Dict (Maybe Int ~ G String)
lhs = Dict
As I said before, we can't actually form the proposition Maybe ~ G within GHC (because G is not saturated), but if F ~ G is taken to mean "F is definitionally equal to G", it's pretty obvious that Maybe /~ G. So it seems like Maybe is not actually generative in the sense defined in the paper. And it seems to me that any data/newtype is susceptible to a similar sequence of reasoning.
So where am I going wrong?
Is my assumption that F, G are allowed to range over type-families as well as type constructors justified? If not, generativity seems like a rather trivial property: "we cannot form the proposition of whether type families are generative, so type families are not generative".
Am I misunderstanding how the variables are quantified in the statement of generativity?
Are there actually any type-level expressions f :: Type -> Type that satisfy the formal property of being generative?
Eh, you're overthinking it. The ~ really is the one from GHC. If you prefer, replace the claim "unsaturated type families are not generative" with "if we expanded ~ to allow unsaturated type families1, then they would not be guaranteed generative2". This latter fact is (part of) the reason we don't bother expanding ~ to allow unsaturated type families -- it would be much less useful for them than it is for other type expressions.
If they were not precise about this divide in the paper, it's just a bit of slightly sloppy writing, such as we've all done at one point or another.
1 You can probably deal with the G/Maybe situation by simply allowing type families on one side of ~ but not the other.
2 In fact, I believe it's even stronger: they would be guaranteed not to be generative.
I'm learning how to use typeclasses in Haskell.
Consider the following implementation of a typeclass T with a type constrained class function f.
class T t where
f :: (Eq u) => t -> u
data T_Impl = T_Impl_Bool Bool | T_Impl_Int Int | T_Impl_Float Float
instance T T_Impl where
f (T_Impl_Bool x) = x
f (T_Impl_Int x) = x
f (T_Impl_Float x) = x
When I load this into GHCI 7.10.2, I get the following error:
Couldn't match expected type ‘u’ with actual type ‘Float’
‘u’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for f :: Eq u => T_Impl -> u
at generics.hs:6:5
Relevant bindings include
f :: T_Impl -> u (bound at generics.hs:6:5)
In the expression: x
In an equation for ‘f’: f (T_Impl_Float x) = x
What am I doing/understanding wrong? It seems reasonable to me that one would want to specialize a typeclass in an instance by providing an accompaning data constructor and function implementation. The part
Couldn't match expected type 'u' with actual type 'Float'
is especially confusing. Why does u not match Float if u only has the constraint that it must qualify as an Eq type (Floats do that afaik)?
The signature
f :: (Eq u) => t -> u
means that the caller can pick t and u as wanted, with the only burden of ensuring that u is of class Eq (and t of class T -- in class methods there's an implicit T t constraint).
It does not mean that the implementation can choose any u.
So, the caller can use f in any of these ways: (with t in class T)
f :: t -> Bool
f :: t -> Char
f :: t -> Int
...
The compiler is complaining that your implementation is not general enough to cover all these cases.
Couldn't match expected type ‘u’ with actual type ‘Float’
means "You gave me a Float, but you must provide a value of the general type u (where u will be chosen by the caller)"
Chi has already pointed out why your code doesn't compile. But it's not even that typeclasses are the problem; indeed, your example has only one instance, so it might just as well be a normal function rather than a class.
Fundamentally, the problem is that you're trying to do something like
foobar :: Show x => Either Int Bool -> x
foobar (Left x) = x
foobar (Right x) = x
This won't work. It tries to make foobar return a different type depending on the value you feed it at run-time. But in Haskell, all types must be 100% determined at compile-time. So this cannot work.
There are several things you can do, however.
First of all, you can do this:
foo :: Either Int Bool -> String
foo (Left x) = show x
foo (Right x) = show x
In other words, rather than return something showable, actually show it. That means the result type is always String. It means that which version of show gets called will vary at run-time, but that's fine. Code paths can vary at run-time, it's types which cannot.
Another thing you can do is this:
toInt :: Either Int Bool -> Maybe Int
toInt (Left x) = Just x
toInt (Right x) = Nothing
toBool :: Either Int Bool -> Maybe Bool
toBool (Left x) = Nothing
toBool (Right x) = Just x
Again, that works perfectly fine.
There are other things you can do; without knowing why you want this, it's difficult to suggest others.
As a side note, you want to stop thinking about this like it's object oriented programming. It isn't. It requires a new way of thinking. In particular, don't reach for a typeclass unless you really need one. (I realise this particular example may just be a learning exercise to learn about typeclasses of course...)
It's possible to do this:
class Eq u => T t u | t -> u where
f :: t -> u
You need FlexibleContextx+FunctionalDepencencies and MultiParamTypeClasses+FlexibleInstances on call-site. Or to eliminate class and to use data types instead like Gabriel shows here
I've discovered these kinds of type signatures:
x :: a b -> Int
x f = 3
y :: a b c -> Int
y f = 3
z :: a b c d -> Int
z f = 3
> x [1] -- 3
> y (1, 2) -- 3
> z (1, 2, 3) -- 3
Basically:
x only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 1 parameter or more.
y only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 2 parameters or more.
z only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 3 parameters or more.
They are valid, but I'm not sure what they mean nor what they could be used for.
They seem related to polytypic notions or polymorphism over type constructors, but enforce an invariant based on many parameters the type constructor accepts.
Without further constraints, such types are useless – there's nothing you could really do with them, expect pass them right on. But that's actually the same situation with a signature a -> Int: if nothing is known about a, there's nothing you can do with it either!
However, like with e.g. toInteger :: Integral a => a -> Integer, adding constraints to the arguments allows you to do stuff. For instance,
import Data.Foldable
import Prelude hiding (foldr)
x' :: (Foldable a, Integral b) => a b -> Integer
x' = foldr ((+) . toInteger) 0
Rather more often than not, when you have a type of the form a b ... n o p q, then a b ... p is at least an instance of the Functor class, often also Applicative and Monad; sometimes Foldable, Traversable, or Comonad; sometimes a b ... o will be Arrow... These constraints allow you to do quite a lot with the composite types, without knowing what particular type constructors you're dealing with.
After studying #leftaroundabout answer and experimenting in GHCI, I've come to an understanding with composite types. Their unification with applied types is based on both the evaluation order and their type variable's kind signature. The evaluation order is quite important as a b c ~ (((a) b) c) while a (b c) is (a ((b) c). This makes a b c match composite types where a is matched with type constructors of kind * -> * -> *, and a b with * -> * and a b c with *.
I explained it fully with diagrams and GHCI code in this gist (https://gist.github.com/CMCDragonkai/2a1d3ecb67dcdabfc7e0) (it's too long for stack overflow)
Situation
I have function f, which I want to augment with function g, resulting in function named h.
Definitions
By "augment", in the general case, I mean: transform either input (one or more arguments) or output (return value) of function f.
By "augment", in the specific case, (specific to my current situation) I mean: transform only the output (return value) of function f while leaving all the arguments intact.
By "transparent", in the context of "augmentation", (both the general case and the specific case) I mean: To couple g's implementation as loosely to f's implementation as possible.
Specific case
In my current situation, this is what I need to do:
h a b c = g $ f a b c
I am interested in rewriting it to something like this:
h = g . f -- Doesn't type-check.
Because from the perspective of h and g, it doesn't matter what arguments f take, they only care about the return value, hence it would be tight coupling to mention the arguments in any way. For instance, if f's argument count changes in the future, h will also need to be changed.
So far
I asked lambdabot on the #haskell IRC channel: #pl h a b c = g $ f a b c to which I got the response:
h = ((g .) .) . f
Which is still not good enough since the number of (.)'s is dependent on the number of f's arguments.
General case
I haven't done much research in this direction, but erisco on #haskell pointed me towards http://matt.immute.net/content/pointless-fun which hints to me that a solution for the general case could be possible.
So far
Using the functions defined by Luke Palmer in the above article this seems to be an equivalent of what we have discussed so far:
h = f $. id ~> id ~> id ~> g
However, it seems that this method sadly also suffers from being dependent on the number of arguments of f if we want to transform the return value of f -- just as the previous methods.
Working example
In JavaScript, for instance, it is possible to achieve transparent augmentation like this:
function h () { return g(f.apply(this, arguments)) }
Question
How can a function be "transparently augmented" in Haskell?
I am mainly interested in the specific case, but it would be also nice to know how to handle the general case.
You can sort-of do it, but since there is no way to specify a behavior for everything that isn't a function, you'll need a lot of trivial instances for all the other types you care about.
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, DefaultSignatures #-}
class Augment a where
type Result a
type Result a = a
type Augmented a r
type Augmented a r = r
augment :: (Result a -> r) -> a -> Augmented a r
default augment :: (a -> r) -> a -> r
augment g x = g x
instance Augment b => Augment (a -> b) where
type Result (a -> b) = Result b
type Augmented (a -> b) r = a -> Augmented b r
augment g f x = augment g (f x)
instance Augment Bool
instance Augment Char
instance Augment Integer
instance Augment [a]
-- and so on for every result type of every function you want to augment...
Example:
> let g n x ys = replicate n x ++ ys
> g 2 'a' "bc"
"aabc"
> let g' = augment length g
> g' 2 'a' "bc"
4
> :t g
g :: Int -> a -> [a] -> [a]
> :t g'
g' :: Int -> a -> [a] -> Int
Well, technically, with just enough IncoherentInstances you can do pretty much anything:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, TypeFamilies,
FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances, IncoherentInstances #-}
class Augment a b f h where
augment :: (a -> b) -> f -> h
instance (a ~ c, h ~ b) => Augment a b c h where
augment = ($)
instance (Augment a b d h', h ~ (c -> h')) => Augment a b (c -> d) h where
augment g f = augment g . f
-- Usage
t1 = augment not not
r1 = t1 True
t2 = augment (+1) (+)
r2 = t2 2 3
t3 = augment (+1) foldr
r3 = t3 (+) 0 [2,3]
The problem is that the real return value of something like a -> b -> c isn't
c, but b -> c. What you want require some kind of test that tells you if a type isn't
a function type. You could enumerate the types you are interested in, but that's not so
nice. I think HList solve this problem somehow, look at the paper. I managed to understand a bit of the solution with overlapping instances, but the rest goes a bit over my head I'm afraid.
JavaScript works, because its arguments are a sequence, or a list, so there is just one argument, really. In that sense it is the same as a curried version of the functions with a tuple representing the collection of arguments.
In a strongly typed language you need a lot more information to do that "transparently" for a function type - for example, dependent types can express this idea, but require the functions to be of specific types, not a arbitrary function type.
I think I saw a workaround in Haskell that can do this, too, but, again, that works only for specific types, which capture the arity of the function, not any function.
So I understand the basic algebraic interpretation of types:
Either a b ~ a + b
(a, b) ~ a * b
a -> b ~ b^a
() ~ 1
Void ~ 0 -- from Data.Void
... and that these relations are true for concrete types, like Bool, as opposed to polymorphic types like a. I also know how to translate type signatures with polymorphic types into their concrete type representations by just translating the Church encoding according to the following isomorphism:
(forall r . (a -> r) -> r) ~ a
So if I have:
id :: forall a . a -> a
I know that it does not mean id ~ a^a, but it actually means:
id :: forall a . (() -> a) -> a
id ~ ()
~ 1
Similarly:
pair :: forall r . (a -> b -> r) -> r
pair ~ ((a, b) -> r) - > r
~ (a, b)
~ a * b
Which brings me to my question. What is the "algebraic" interpretation of this rule:
(forall r . (a -> r) -> r) ~ a
For every concrete type isomorphism I can point to an equivalent algebraic rule, such as:
(a, (b, c)) ~ ((a, b), c)
a * (b * c) = (a * b) * c
a -> (b -> c) ~ (a, b) -> c
(c^b)^a = c^(b * a)
But I don't understand the algebraic equality that is analogous to:
(forall r . (a -> r) -> r) ~ a
This is the famous Yoneda lemma for the identity functor.
Check this post for a readable introduction, and any category theory textbook for more.
Briefly, given f :: forall r. (a -> r) -> r you can apply f id to get an a, and conversely, given x :: a you can take ($x) to get forall r. (a -> r) -> r.
These operations are mutually inverse. Proof:
Obviously ($x) id == x. I will show that
($(f id)) == f,
since functions are equal when they are equal on all arguments, let's take x :: a -> r and show that
($(f id)) x == f x i.e.
x (f id) == f x.
Since f is polymorphic, it works as a natural transformation; this is the naturality diagram for f:
f_A
Hom(A, A) → A
(x.) ↓ ↓ x
Hom(A, R) → R
f_R
So x . f == f . (x.).
Plugging identity, (x . f) id == f x. QED
(Rewritten for clarity)
There seem to be two parts to your question. One is implied and is asking what the algebraic interpretation of forall is, and the other is asking about the cont/Yoneda transformation, which sdcvvc's answer already covered pretty well.
I'll try to address the algebraic interpretation of forall for you. You mention that A -> B is B^A but I'd like to take that a step further and expand it out to B * B * B * ... * B (|A| times). Although we do have exponentiation as a notation for repeated multiplication like that, there's a more flexible notation, ∏ (uppercase Pi) representing arbitrary indexed products. There are two components to a Pi: the range of values we want to multiply over, and the expression that we're multiplying out. For example, at the value level, you might express the factorial function as fact i = ∏ [1..i] (λx -> x).
Going back to the world of types, we can view the exponentiation operator in the A -> B ~ B^A correspondence as a Pi: B^A ~ ∏ A (λ_ -> B). This says that we're defining an A-ary product of Bs, such that the Bs cannot depend on the particular A we've chosen. Sure, it's equivalent to plain exponentiation, but it lets us move up to cases in which there is a dependence.
In the most general case, we get dependent types, like what you see in Agda or Coq: in Agda syntax, replicate : Bool -> ((n : Nat) -> Vec Bool n) is one possible application of a Pi type, which could be expressed more explicitly as replicate : Bool -> ∏ Nat (Vec Bool), or further as replicate : ∏ Bool (λ_ -> ∏ Nat (Vec Bool)).
Note that as you might expect from the underlying algebra, you can fuse both of the ∏s in the definition of replicate above into a single ∏ ranging over the cartesian product of the domains: ∏ Bool (\_ -> ∏ Nat (Vec Bool)) is equivalent to ∏ (Bool, Nat) (λ(_, n) -> Vec Bool n) just like it would be at the "value level". This is simply uncurrying from the perspective of type theory.
I do realize your question was about polymorphism, so I'll stop going on about dependent types, but they are relevant: forall in Haskell is roughly equivalent to a ∏ with a domain over the type (kind) of types, *. Indeed, the function-like behavior of polymorphism can be observed directly in GHC core, which types them as capital lambdas (Λ). As such, a polymorphic type like forall a. a -> a is actually just ∏ * (Λ a -> (a -> a)) (using the Λ notation now that we distinguish between types and values), which can be expanded out to the infinite product (Bool -> Bool, Int -> Int, () -> (), (Int -> Bool) -> (Int -> Bool), ...) for every possible type. Instantiation of the type variable is simply projecting out the suitable element from the *-ary product (or applying the type function).
Now, for the big piece I missed in my original version of this answer: parametricity. Parametricity can be described in several different ways, but none of the ones I know of (viewing types as relations, or (di)naturality in category theory) really has a very algebraic interpretation. For our purposes, though, it boils down to something fairly simple: you can't pattern-match on *. I know that GHC lets you do that at the type level with type families, but you can only cover a finite chunk of * when doing that, so there are necessarily always points at which your type family is undefined.
What this means, from the point of view of polymorphism, is that any type function F we write in ∏ * F must either be constant (i.e., completely ignore the type it was polymorphic over) or pass the type through unchanged. Thus, ∏ * (Λ _ -> B) is valid because it ignores its argument, and corresponds to forall a. B. The other case is something like ∏ * (Λ x -> Maybe x), which corresponds to forall a. Maybe a, which doesn't ignore the type argument, but only "passes it through". As such, a ∏ A that has an irrelevant domain A (such as when A = *) can be seen as more of an A-ary indexed intersection (picking the common elements across all instantiations of the index), rather than a product.
Crucially, at the value level, the rules of parametricity prevent any funny behavior that might suggest the types are larger than they really are. Because we don't have typecase, we can't construct a value of type forall a. B that does something different based on what a was instantiated to. Thus, although the type is technically a function * -> B, it is always a constant function, and is thus equivalent to a single value of B. Using the ∏ interpretation, it is indeed equivalent to an infinite *-ary product of Bs, but those B values must always be identical, so the infinite product is effectively as big as a single B.
Similarly, although ∏ * (Λ x -> (x -> x)) (a.k.a., forall a. a -> a) is technically equivalent to an infinite product of functions, none of those functions can inspect the type, so all are constrained to only return their input value and not do any funny business like (+1) : Int -> Int when instantiated to Int. Because there is only one (assuming a total language) function that can't inspect the type of its argument but must return a value of that same type, the infinite product is thus just as large as a single value.
Now, about your direct question on (forall r . (a -> r) -> r) ~ a. First, let's express your ~ operator more formally. It's really isomorphism, so we need two functions going back and forth, and an argument that they're inverses.
data Iso a b = Iso
{ to :: a -> b
, from :: b -> a
-- proof1 :: forall x. to (from x) == x
-- proof2 :: forall x. from (to x) == x
}
and now we express your original question in more formal terms. Your question amounts to constructing a term of the following (impredicative, so GHC has trouble with it, but we'll survive) type:
forall a. Iso (forall r. (a -> r) -> r) a
Which, using my earlier terminology, amounts to ∏ * (Λ a -> Iso (∏ * (Λ r -> ((a -> r) -> r))) a). Once again we have an infinite product that can't inspect its type argument. By handwaving, we can argue that the only possible values considering the parametricity rules (the other two proofs are respected automatically) for to and from are ($ id) and flip id.
If this feels unsatisfying, it's probably because the algebraic interpretation of forall didn't really add anything to the proof. It's really just plain old type theory, but I hope I was able to provide something that feels a little less categorical than the Yoneda form of it. It's worth noting that we don't actually need to use parametricity to write proof1 and proof2 above, though. Parametricity only enters the picture when we want to state that ($ id) and flip id are our only options for to and from (which we can't prove in Agda or Coq, for that reason).
To (attempt to) answer the actual question (which is less interesting than the answers to the broader issues raised), the question is ill formed because of a "type error"
Either ~ (+)
(,) ~ (*)
(->) b ~ flip (^)
() ~ 1
Void ~ 0
These all map types to integers, and type constructors to functions on naturals. In a sense, you have a functor from the category of types to the category of naturals. In the other direction, you "forget" stuff, since the types preserve algebraic structure while the naturals throw it away. I.e. given Either () () you can get a unique natural, but given that natural, you can get many types.
But this is different:
(forall r . (a -> r) -> r) ~ a
It maps a type to another type! It is not part of the above functor. It's just an isomorphism within the category of types. So let's give that a different symbol, <=>
Now we have
(forall r . (a -> r) -> r) <=> a
Now you note that we can not only send types to nats and arrows to arrows, but also some isomorphisms to other isomorphisms:
(a, (b, c)) <=> ((a, b), c) ~ a * (b * c) = (a * b) * c
But something subtle is going on here. In a sense, the latter isomorphism on pairs is true because the algebraic identity is true. This is to say that the "isomorphism" in the latter simply means that the two types are equivalent under the image of our functor to the nats.
The former isomorphism we need to prove directly, which is where we start to get to the underlying question -- is given our functor to the nats, what does forall r. map to? But the answer is that forall r. is neither a type, nor a meaningful arrow between types.
By introducing forall, we have moved away from first order types. There's no reason to expect that forall should fit in our above Functor, and indeed, it doesn't.
So we can explore, as others have above, why the isomorphism holds (which is itself very interesting) -- but in doing so we've abandoned the algebraic core of the question. A question which can be answered, I think, is, given the category of higher-order types and constructors as arrows between them, what is there meaningful Functor to?
Edit:
So now I have another approach which shows why adding polymorphism makes things go nuts. We start by asking a simpler question -- does a given polymorphic type have zero or more than zero inhabitants? This is the type inhabitation problem, and winds up being, via Curry-Howard, a problem in modified realizability, since it's the same thing as asking if a formula in some logic is realizable in an appropriate computational model. Now as that page explains, this is decidable in the simply typed lambda calculus but is PSPACE-complete. But once we move to anything more complicated, by adding polymorphism for example and going to System F, then it goes to undecidable!
So, if we can't decide if an arbitrary type is inhabited at all, then we clearly can't decide how many inhabitants it has!
It's an interesting question. I don't have a full answer, but this was too long for a comment.
The type signature (forall r. (a -> r) -> r) can be expressed as me saying
For any type r that you care to name, if you give me a function that takes a and produces an r, then I will give you back an r.
Now, this has to work for any type r, but it can be a specific type a. So the way for me to pull of this neat trick is to have an a sitting around somewhere, that I feed to the function (which produces an r for me) and then I hand that r back to you.
But if I have an a sitting around, I could give it to you:
If you give me a 1, I'll give you an a.
which corresponds to the type signature 1 -> a or simply a. By this informal argument we have
(forall r. (a -> r) -> r) ~ a
The next step would be to generate the corresponding algebraic expression, but I'm not clear on how the algebraic quantities interact with the universal quantification. We may need to wait for an expert!
A few links to the nLab:
Universal quantifier, corresponds to dependent product.
Existential quantifier, corresponds to dependent sum (dependent coproduct).
Thus, in settings of category theory:
Type | Modeled¹ as | In category
-------------------+---------------------------+-------------
Unit | Terminal object | CCC
Bottom | Initial object |
Record | Product |
Union | Sum (coproduct) |
Function | Exponential |
-------------------+---------------------------+-------------
Dependent product² | Right adjoint to pullback | LCCC
Dependent sum | Left adjoint to pullback |
¹) in appropriate category ─ CCC for total and non-polymorphic subset of Haskell (link), CPO for non-total traits of Haskell (link), LCCC for dependently typed languages.
²) forall quantification is a special case of dependent product:
∀(x :: *). y[x] ~ ∏(x : Set)y[x]
where Set is the universe of all small types.