I am trying to figure out the purpose of type class, and what else is there if not using type class.
Is type class a way to define polymorphic functions?
Is type class the only way to define polymorphic functions? For example:
class Eq a where
(==), (/=) :: a -> a -> Bool
x /= y = not (x == y)
instance Eq Bool where
False == False = True
True == True = True
_ == _ = False
Can I define == and /= for Bool (and any other type) without using type class Eq?
Where there is any other way, when shall I use which way to define polymorphic functions, by using type class or by using the other way?
You can always write unconstrained polymorphic function, that doesn't require any typeclass. A simple example is
length :: [a] -> Int
– this works without a typeclass, and (well, because) it works for any type a whatsoever. Namely, length doesn't actually care what the values in that list are, it only cares about the structure in which those values are contained. It never actually does anything with those values themselves, and the polymorphic type actually guarantees that.
If the polymorphic task you need is of this form, i.e. a type that you don't actually need to access, you just know it's there, then you should not write/invoke a type class, just use ML-style parametric polymorphism as in length. However, quite often you will need to access the values themselves, inspect them in some way. Doing that without however limiting you to a particular concrete type is what type classes are there for. Eq, as you quoted yourself, is an example.
Is type class a way to define polymorphic functions?
Yes, it is a way. But not the only way. For example parametric polymorphism simply means that if you define a function like init :: [a] -> [a], it will work for any a. Type classes are used for ad-hoc polymorphism: depending on the type, the implementation can be entirely different. This in contrast to parametric polymorphism, where the head function is always the same, regardless the type for a.
Is type class the only way to define polymorphic functions?
No, see the previous section.
Can I define == and /= for Bool (and any other type) without using type class Eq?
That depends on whether the implementation is the same for all types or not. You can use the -XNoImplicitPrelude flag to avoid importing the Prelude, and then you can define your own (==) function.
There is a difference between polymorphic fuctions in OOP and in haskell, I say it because the term "polymorphism " is usually used in OOP.
Functions over list, by example, are polymorphic:
cons:: a -> [a] -> [a]
cons x xs = x:xs
where a is the polymorphic type, and there is no typeclass there.
By the way, there is a way to implement quickly typeclasses, by default, such as Eq or Show, by example:
data MBool = MTrue | MFalse deriving (Eq, Show)
So, the difference is that the typeclass is a constraint, imagine this function with lists:
mapShow :: Show a => [a] -> [String]
mapShow = map show
That's different, because now, a is restricted, it can't be any "a". It should implement the typeclass Show.
In conclusion, you can see that a type in cons function is more generic or abstract than Show => a -> a type in mapShow function.
Related
In Haskell id function is defined on type level as id :: a -> a and implemented as just returning its argument without any modification, but if we have some type introspection with TypeApplications we can try to modify values without breaking type signature:
{-# LANGUAGE AllowAmbiguousTypes, ScopedTypeVariables, TypeApplications #-}
module Main where
class TypeOf a where
typeOf :: String
instance TypeOf Bool where
typeOf = "Bool"
instance TypeOf Char where
typeOf = "Char"
instance TypeOf Int where
typeOf = "Int"
tweakId :: forall a. TypeOf a => a -> a
tweakId x
| typeOf #a == "Bool" = not x
| typeOf #a == "Int" = x+1
| typeOf #a == "Char" = x
| otherwise = x
This fail with error:
"Couldn't match expected type ‘a’ with actual type ‘Bool’"
But I don't see any problems here (type signature satisfied):
My question is:
How can we do such a thing in a Haskell?
If we can't, that is theoretical\philosophical etc reasons for this?
If this implementation of tweak_id is not "original id", what are theoretical roots that id function must not to do any modifications on term level. Or can we have many implementations of id :: a -> a function (I see that in practice we can, I can implement such a function in Python for example, but what the theory behind Haskell says to this?)
You need GADTs for that.
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables, TypeApplications, GADTs #-}
import Data.Typeable
import Data.Type.Equality
tweakId :: forall a. Typeable a => a -> a
tweakId x
| Just Refl <- eqT #a #Int = x + 1
-- etc. etc.
| otherwise = x
Here we use eqT #type1 #type2 to check whether the two types are equal. If they are, the result is Just Refl and pattern matching on that Refl is enough to convince the type checker that the two types are indeed equal, so we can use x + 1 since x is now no longer only of type a but also of type Int.
This check requires runtime type information, which we usually do not have due to Haskell's type erasure property. The information is provided by the Typeable type class.
This can also be achieved using a user-defined class like your TypeOf if we make it provide a custom GADT value. This can work well if we want to encode some constraint like "type a is either an Int, a Bool, or a String" where we statically know what types to allow (we can even recursively define a set of allowed types in this way). However, to allow any type, including ones that have not yet been defined, we need something like Typeable. That is also very convenient since any user-defined type is automatically made an instance of Typeable.
This fail with error: "Couldn't match expected type ‘a’ with actual type ‘Bool’"But I don't see any problems here
Well, what if I add this instance:
instance TypeOf Float where
typeOf = "Bool"
Do you see the problem now? Nothing prevents somebody from adding such an instance, no matter how silly it is. And so the compiler can't possibly make the assumption that having checked typeOf #a == "Bool" is sufficient to actually use x as being of type Bool.
You can squelch the error if you are confident that nobody will add malicious instances, by using unsafe coercions.
import Unsafe.Coerce
tweakId :: forall a. TypeOf a => a -> a
tweakId x
| typeOf #a == "Bool" = unsafeCoerce (not $ unsafeCoerce x)
| typeOf #a == "Int" = unsafeCoerce (unsafeCoerce x+1 :: Int)
| typeOf #a == "Char" = unsafeCoerce (unsafeCoerce x :: Char)
| otherwise = x
but I would not recommend this. The correct way is to not use strings as a poor man's type representation, but instead the standard Typeable class which is actually tamper-proof and comes with suitable GADTs so you don't need manual unsafe coercions. See chi's answer.
As an alternative, you could also use type-level strings and a functional dependency to make the unsafe coercions safe:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds, FunctionalDependencies
, ScopedTypeVariables, UnicodeSyntax, TypeApplications #-}
import GHC.TypeLits (KnownSymbol, symbolVal)
import Data.Proxy (Proxy(..))
import Unsafe.Coerce
class KnownSymbol t => TypeOf a t | a->t, t->a
instance TypeOf Bool "Bool"
instance TypeOf Int "Int"
tweakId :: ∀ a t . TypeOf a t => a -> a
tweakId x = case symbolVal #t Proxy of
"Bool" -> unsafeCoerce (not $ unsafeCoerce x)
"Int" -> unsafeCoerce (unsafeCoerce x + 1 :: Int)
_ -> x
The trick is that the fundep t->a makes writing another instance like
instance TypeOf Float "Bool"
a compile error right there.
Of course, really the most sensible approach is probably to not bother with any kind of manual type equality at all, but simply use the class right away for the behaviour changes you need:
class Tweakable a where
tweak :: a -> a
instance Tweakable Bool where
tweak = not
instance Tweakable Int where
tweak = (+1)
instance Tweakable Char where
tweak = id
The other answers are both very good for covering the ways you can do something like this in Haskell. But I thought it was worth adding something speaking more to this part of the question:
If we can't, that is theoretical\philosophical etc reasons for this?
Actually Haskellers do generally rely quite strongly on the theory that forbids something like your tweakId from existing with type forall a. a -> a. (Even though there are ways to cheat, using things like unsafeCoerce; this is usually considered bad style if you haven't done something like in leftaroundabout's answer, where a class with functional dependencies ensures the unsafe coerce is always valid)
Haskell uses parametric polymorphism1. That means we can write code that works on multiple types because it will treat them all the same; the code only uses operations that will work regardless of the specific type it is invoked on. This is expressed in Haskell types by using type variables; a function with a variable in its type can be used with any type at all substituted for the variable, because every single operation in the function definition will work regardless of what type is chosen.
About the simplest example is indeed the function id, which might be defined like this:
id :: forall a. a -> a
id x = x
Because it's parametrically polymorphic, we can simply choose any type at all we like and use id as if it was defined on that type. For example as if it were any of the following:
id :: Bool -> Bool
id x = x
id :: Int -> Int
id x = x
id :: Maybe (Int -> [IO Bool]) -> Maybe (Int -> [IO Bool])
id x = x
But to ensure that the definition does work for any type, the compiler has to check a very strong restriction. Our id function can only use operations that don't depend on any property of any specific type at all. We can't call not x because the x might not be a Bool, we can't call x + 1 because the x might not be a number, can't check whether x is equal to anything because it might not be a type that supports equality, etc, etc. In fact there is almost nothing you can do with x in the body of id. We can't even ignore x and return some other value of type a; this would require us to write an expression for a value that can be of any type at all and the only things that can do that are things like undefined that don't evaluate to a value at all (because they throw exceptions). It's often said that in fact there is only one valid function with type forall a. a -> a (and that is id)2.
This restriction on what you can do with values whose type contains variables isn't just a restriction for the sake of being picky, it's actually a huge part of what makes Haskell types useful. It means that just looking at the type of a function can often tell you quite a bit about what it can possibly do, and once you get used to it Haskellers rely on this kind of thinking all the time. For example, consider this function signature:
map :: forall a b. (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Just from this type (and the assumption that the code doesn't do anything dumb like add in extra undefined elements of the list) I can tell:
All of the items in the resulting list come are results of the function input; map will have no other way of producing values of type b to put in the list (except undefined, etc).
All of the items in the resulting list correspond to something in the input list mapped through the function; map will have no way of getting any a values to feed to the function (except undefined, etc)
If any items of the input list are dropped or re-ordered, it will be done in a "blind" way that isn't considering the elements at all, only their position in the list; map ultimately has no way of testing any property of the a and b values to decide which order they should go in. For example it might leave out the third element, or swap the 2nd and 76th elements if there are at least 100 elements, etc. But if it applies rules like that it will have to always apply them, regardless of the actual items in the list. It cannot e.g. drop the 4th element if it is less than the 5th element, or only keep outputs from the function that are "truthy", etc.
None of this would be true if Haskell allowed parametrically polymorphic types to have Python-like definitions that check the type of their arguments and then run different code. Such a definition for map could check if the function is supposed to return integers and if so return [1, 2, 3, 4] regardless of the input list, etc. So the type checker would be enforcing a lot less (and thus catching fewer mistakes) if it worked this way.
This kind of reasoning is formalised in the concept of free theorems; it's literally possible to derive formal proofs about a piece of code from its type (and thus get theorems for free). You can google this if you're interested in further reading, but Haskellers generally use this concept informally rather doing real proofs.
Sometimes we do need non-parametric polymorphism. The main tool Haskell provides for that is type classes. If a type variable has a class constraint, then there will be an interface of class methods provided by that constraint. For example the Eq a constraint allows (==) :: a -> a -> Bool to be used, and your own TypeOf a constraint allows typeOf #a to be used. Type class methods do allow you to run different code for different types, so this breaks parametricity. Even just adding Eq a to the type of map means I can no longer assume property 3 from above.
map :: forall a b. Eq a => (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Now map can tell whether some of the items in the original list are equal to each other, so it can use that to decide whether to include them in the result, and in what order. Likewise Monoid a or Monoid b would allow map to break the first two properties by using mempty :: a to produce new values that weren't in the list originally or didn't come from the function. If I add Typeable constraints I can't assume anything, because the function could do all of the Python-style checking of types to apply special-case logic, make use of existing values it knows about if a or b happen to be those types, etc.
So something like your tweakId cannot be given the type forall a. a -> a, for theoretical reasons that are also extremely practically important. But if you need a function that behaves like your tweakId adding a class constraint was the right thing to do to break out of the constraints of parametricity. However simply being able to get a String for each type isn't enough; typeOf #a == "Int" doesn't tell the type checker that a can be used in operations requiring an Int. It knows that in that branch the equality check returned True, but that's just a Bool; the type checker isn't able to reason backwards to why this particular Bool is True and deduce that it could only have happened if a were the type Int. But there are alternative constructs using GADTs that do give the type checker additional knowledge within certain code branches, allowing you to check types at runtime and use different code for each type. The class Typeable is specifically designed for this, but it's a hammer that completely bypasses parametricity; I think most Haskellers would prefer to keep more type-based reasoning intact where possible.
1 Parametric polymorphism is in contrast to class-based polymorphism you may have seen in OO languages (where each class says how a method is implemented for objects of that specific class), or ad-hoc polymophism (as seen in C++) where you simply define multiple definitions with the same name but different types and the types at each application determine which definition is used. I'm not covering those in detail, but the key distinction is both of them allow the definition to have different code for each supported type, rather than guaranteeing the same code will process all supported types.
2 It's not 100% true that there's only one valid function with type forall a. a -> a unless you hide some caveats in "valid". But if you don't use any unsafe features (like unsafeCoerce or the foreign language interface), then a function with type forall a. a -> a will either always throw an exception or it will return its argument unchanged.
The "always throws an exception" isn't terribly useful so we usually assume an unknown function with that type isn't going to do that, and thus ignore this possibility.
There are multiple ways to implement "returns its argument unchanged", like id x = head . head . head $ [[[x]]], but they can only differ from the normal id in being slower by building up some structure around x and then immediately tearing it down again. A caller that's only worrying about correctness (rather than performance) can treat them all the same.
Thus, ignoring the "always undefined" possibility and treating all of the dumb elaborations of id x = x the same, we come to the perspective where we can say "there's only one function with forall a. a -> a".
Type system in haskell seem to be very Important and I wanted to clarify some terms revolving around haskell type system.
Some type classes
Functor
Applicative
Monad
After using :info I found that Functor is a type class, Applicative is a type class with => (deriving?) Functor and Monad deriving Applicative type class.
I've read that Maybe is a Monad, does that mean Maybe is also Applicative and Functor?
-> operator
When i define a type
data Maybe = Just a | Nothing
and check :t Just I get Just :: a -> Maybe a. How to read this -> operator?
It confuses me with the function where a -> b means it evaluates a to b (sort of returns a maybe) – I tend to think lhs to rhs association but it turns when defining types?
The term type is used in ambiguous ways, Type, Type Class, Type Constructor, Concrete Type etc... I would like to know what they mean to be exact
Indeed the word “type” is used in somewhat ambiguous ways.
The perhaps most practical way to look at it is that a type is just a set of values. For example, Bool is the finite set containing the values True and False.Mathematically, there are subtle differences between the concepts of set and type, but they aren't really important for a programmer to worry about. But you should in general consider the sets to be infinite, for example Integer contains arbitrarily big numbers.
The most obvious way to define a type is with a data declaration, which in the simplest case just lists all the values:
data Colour = Red | Green | Blue
There we have a type which, as a set, contains three values.
Concrete type is basically what we say to make it clear that we mean the above: a particular type that corresponds to a set of values. Bool is a concrete type, that can easily be understood as a data definition, but also String, Maybe Integer and Double -> IO String are concrete types, though they don't correspond to any single data declaration.
What a concrete type can't have is type variables†, nor can it be an incompletely applied type constructor. For example, Maybe is not a concrete type.
So what is a type constructor? It's the type-level analogue to value constructors. What we mean mathematically by “constructor” in Haskell is an injective function, i.e. a function f where if you're given f(x) you can clearly identify what was x. Furthermore, any different constructors are assumed to have disjoint ranges, which means you can also identify f.‡
Just is an example of a value constructor, but it complicates the discussion that it also has a type parameter. Let's consider a simplified version:
data MaybeInt = JustI Int | NothingI
Now we have
JustI :: Int -> MaybeInt
That's how JustI is a function. Like any function of the same signature, it can be applied to argument values of the right type, like, you can write JustI 5.What it means for this function to be injective is that I can define a variable, say,
quoxy :: MaybeInt
quoxy = JustI 9328
and then I can pattern match with the JustI constructor:
> case quoxy of { JustI n -> print n }
9328
This would not be possible with a general function of the same signature:
foo :: Int -> MaybeInt
foo i = JustI $ negate i
> case quoxy of { foo n -> print n }
<interactive>:5:17: error: Parse error in pattern: foo
Note that constructors can be nullary, in which case the injective property is meaningless because there is no contained data / arguments of the injective function. Nothing and True are examples of nullary constructors.
Type constructors are the same idea as value constructors: type-level functions that can be pattern-matched. Any type-name defined with data is a type constructor, for example Bool, Colour and Maybe are all type constructors. Bool and Colour are nullary, but Maybe is a unary type constructor: it takes a type argument and only the result is then a concrete type.
So unlike value-level functions, type-level functions are kind of by default type constructors. There are also type-level functions that aren't constructors, but they require -XTypeFamilies.
A type class may be understood as a set of types, in the same vein as a type can be seen as a set of values. This is not quite accurate, it's closer to true to say a class is a set of type constructors but again it's not as useful to ponder the mathematical details – better to look at examples.
There are two main differences between type-as-set-of-values and class-as-set-of-types:
How you define the “elements”: when writing a data declaration, you need to immediately describe what values are allowed. By contrast, a class is defined “empty”, and then the instances are defined later on, possibly in a different module.
How the elements are used. A data type basically enumerates all the values so they can be identified again. Classes meanwhile aren't generally concerned with identifying types, rather they specify properties that the element-types fulfill. These properties come in the form of methods of a class. For example, the instances of the Num class are types that have the property that you can add elements together.
You could say, Haskell is statically typed on the value level (fixed sets of values in each type), but duck-typed on the type level (classes just require that somebody somewhere implements the necessary methods).
A simplified version of the Num example:
class Num a where
(+) :: a -> a -> a
instance Num Int where
0 + x = x
x + y = ...
If the + operator weren't already defined in the prelude, you would now be able to use it with Int numbers. Then later on, perhaps in a different module, you could also make it usable with new, custom number types:
data MyNumberType = BinDigits [Bool]
instance Num MyNumberType where
BinDigits [] + BinDigits l = BinDigits l
BinDigits (False:ds) + BinDigits (False:es)
= BinDigits (False : ...)
Unlike Num, the Functor...Monad type classes are not classes of types, but of 1-ary type constructors. I.e. every functor is a type constructor taking one argument to make it a concrete type. For instance, recall that Maybe is a 1-ary type constructor.
class Functor f where
fmap :: (a->b) -> f a -> f b
instance Functor Maybe where
fmap f (Just a) = Just (f a)
fmap _ Nothing = Nothing
As you have concluded yourself, Applicative is a subclass of Functor. D being a subclass of C means basically that D is a subset of the set of type constructors in C. Therefore, yes, if Maybe is an instance of Monad it also is an instance of Functor.
†That's not quite true: if you consider the _universal quantor_ explicitly as part of the type, then a concrete type can contain variables. This is a bit of an advanced subject though.
‡This is not guaranteed to be true if the -XPatternSynonyms extension is used.
I'm writing a benchmark to compare the performance of a number of Haskell collections, including STArray, on a given task. To eliminate repetition, I'm trying to write a set of functions that provide a uniform interface to these collections, so that I can implement the task as a polymorphic higher-order function. More specifically, the task is implemented in terms of a polymorphic monad, which is ST s for STArray, and Identity for collections like HashMap, that do not typically need to be manipulated within a monad.
Due to uniformity requirements, I can't use the Identity and HashMap types directly, as I need their kinds to match the kinds of ST and STArray. I thought that the simplest way to achieve this would be to define type synonyms with phantom parameters:
type Identity' s a = Identity a
type HashMap' s i e = HashMap i e
-- etc.
Unfortunately this doesn't work, because when I try to use these synonyms as type constructors in places where I use ST and STArray as type constructors, GHC gives errors like:
The type synonym ‘Identity'’ should have 2 arguments, but has been given none
I came across the -XLiberalTypeSynonyms GHC extension, and thought it would allow me to do this, as the documentation says:
You can apply a type synonym to a partially applied type synonym
and gives this example of doing so:
type Generic i o = forall x. i x -> o x
type Id x = x
foo :: Generic Id []
That example works in GHC 8.0.2 (with -XExistentialQuantification and -XRank2Types). But replacing Generic with a newtype or data declaration, as needed in my use case, does not work.
I.e. the following code leads to the same kind of error that I reported above:
newtype Generic i o = Generic (forall x. i x -> o x)
type Id x = x
foo :: Generic Id []
foo = Generic (\x -> [x])
Question
Is there some other extension that I need to enable to get this to work? If not, is there a good reason why this doesn't work, or is it just an oversight?
Workaround
I'm aware that I can work around this by defining Identity', etc. as fully-fledged types, e.g.:
newtype Identity' s a = Identity' a
newtype Collection collection s i e = Collection (collection i e)
-- etc.
This is not ideal though, as it means that I have to reimplement Identity's Functor, Applicative and Monad instances for Identity', and it means that I have to write additional wrapping and unwrapping code for the collections.
I'm covering polymorphism and I'm trying to see the practical uses of such a feature.
My basic understanding of Rank 2 is:
type MyType = ∀ a. a -> a
subFunction :: a -> a
subFunction el = el
mainFunction :: MyType -> Int
mainFunction func = func 3
I understand that this is allowing the user to use a polymorphic function (subFunction) inside mainFunction and strictly specify it's output (Int). This seems very similar to GADT's:
data Example a where
ExampleInt :: Int -> Example Int
ExampleBool :: Bool -> Example Bool
1) Given the above, is my understanding of Rank 2 polymorphism correct?
2) What are the general situations where Rank 2 polymorphism can be used, as opposed to GADT's, for example?
If you pass a polymorphic function as and argument to a Rank2-polymorphic function, you're essentially passing not just one function but a whole family of functions – for all possible types that fulfill the constraints.
Typically, those forall quantifiers come with a class constraint. For example, I might wish to do number arithmetic with two different types simultaneously (for comparing precision or whatever).
data FloatCompare = FloatCompare {
singlePrecision :: Float
, doublePrecision :: Double
}
Now I might want to modify those numbers through some maths operation. Something like
modifyFloat :: (Num -> Num) -> FloatCompare -> FloatCompare
But Num is not a type, only a type class. I could of course pass a function that would modify any particular number type, but I couldn't use that to modify both a Float and a Double value, at least not without some ugly (and possibly lossy) converting back and forth.
Solution: Rank-2 polymorphism!
modifyFloat :: (∀ n . Num n => n -> n) -> FloatCompare -> FloatCompare
mofidyFloat f (FloatCompare single double)
= FloatCompare (f single) (f double)
The best single example of how this is useful in practice are probably lenses. A lens is a “smart accessor function” to a field in some larger data structure. It allows you to access fields, update them, gather results... while at the same time composing in a very simple way. How it works: Rank2-polymorphism; every lens is polymorphic, with the different instantiations corresponding to the “getter” / “setter” aspects, respectively.
The go-to example of an application of rank-2 types is runST as Benjamin Hodgson mentioned in the comments. This is a rather good example and there are a variety of examples using the same trick. For example, branding to maintain abstract data type invariants across multiple types, avoiding confusion of differentials in ad, a region-based version of ST.
But I'd actually like to talk about how Haskell programmers are implicitly using rank-2 types all the time. Every type class whose methods have universally quantified types desugars to a dictionary with a field with a rank-2 type. In practice, this is virtually always a higher-kinded type class* like Functor or Monad. I'll use a simplified version of Alternative as an example. The class declaration is:
class Alternative f where
empty :: f a
(<|>) :: f a -> f a -> f a
The dictionary representing this class would be:
data AlternativeDict f = AlternativeDict {
empty :: forall a. f a,
(<|>) :: forall a. f a -> f a -> f a }
Sometimes such an encoding is nice as it allows one to use different "instances" for the same type, perhaps only locally. For example, Maybe has two obvious instances of Alternative depending on whether Just a <|> Just b is Just a or Just b. Languages without type classes, such as Scala, do indeed use this encoding.
To connect to leftaroundabout's reference to lenses, you can view the hierarchy there as a hierarchy of type classes and the lens combinators as simply tools for explicitly building the relevant type class dictionaries. Of course, the reason it isn't actually a hierarchy of type classes is that we usually will have multiple "instances" for the same type. E.g. _head and _head . _tail are both "instances" of Traversal' s a.
* A higher-kinded type class doesn't necessarily lead to this, and it can happen for a type class of kind *. For example:
-- Higher-kinded but doesn't require universal quantification.
class Sum c where
sum :: c Int -> Int
-- Not higher-kinded but does require universal quantification.
class Length l where
length :: [a] -> l
If you are using modules in Haskell, you are already using Rank-2 types. Theoretically speaking, modules are records with rank-2 type properties.
For example, the Foo module below in Haskell ...
module Foo(id) where
id :: forall a. a -> a
id x = x
import qualified Foo
main = do
putStrLn (Foo.id "hello")
return ()
... can actually be thought as a record as follows:
type FooType = FooType {
id :: forall a. a -> a
}
Foo :: FooType
Foo = Foo {
id = \x -> x
}
P/S (unrelated this question): from a language design perspective, if you are going to support module system, then you might as well support higher-rank types (i.e. allow arbitrary quantification of type variables on any level) to reduce duplication of efforts (i.e. type checking a module should be almost the same as type checking a record with higher rank types).
I was doing my usual "Read a chapter of LYAH before bed" routine, feeling like my brain was expanding with every code sample. At this point I was convinced that I understood the core awesomeness of Haskell, and now just had to understand the standard libraries and type classes so that I could start writing real software.
So I was reading the chapter about applicative functors when all of a sudden the book claimed that functions don't merely have types, they are types, and can be treated as such (For example, by making them instances of type classes). (->) is a type constructor like any other.
My mind was blown yet again, and I immediately jumped out of bed, booted up the computer, went to GHCi and discovered the following:
Prelude> :k (->)
(->) :: ?? -> ? -> *
What on earth does it mean?
If (->) is a type constructor, what are the value constructors? I can take a guess, but would have no idea how define it in traditional data (->) ... = ... | ... | ... format. It's easy enough to do this with any other type constructor: data Either a b = Left a | Right b. I suspect my inability to express it in this form is related to the extremly weird type signature.
What have I just stumbled upon? Higher kinded types have kind signatures like * -> * -> *. Come to think of it... (->) appears in kind signatures too! Does this mean that not only is it a type constructor, but also a kind constructor? Is this related to the question marks in the type signature?
I have read somewhere (wish I could find it again, Google fails me) about being able to extend type systems arbitrarily by going from Values, to Types of Values, to Kinds of Types, to Sorts of Kinds, to something else of Sorts, to something else of something elses, and so on forever. Is this reflected in the kind signature for (->)? Because I've also run into the notion of the Lambda cube and the calculus of constructions without taking the time to really investigate them, and if I remember correctly it is possible to define functions that take types and return types, take values and return values, take types and return values, and take values which return types.
If I had to take a guess at the type signature for a function which takes a value and returns a type, I would probably express it like this:
a -> ?
or possibly
a -> *
Although I see no fundamental immutable reason why the second example couldn't easily be interpreted as a function from a value of type a to a value of type *, where * is just a type synonym for string or something.
The first example better expresses a function whose type transcends a type signature in my mind: "a function which takes a value of type a and returns something which cannot be expressed as a type."
You touch so many interesting points in your question, so I am
afraid this is going to be a long answer :)
Kind of (->)
The kind of (->) is * -> * -> *, if we disregard the boxity GHC
inserts. But there is no circularity going on, the ->s in the
kind of (->) are kind arrows, not function arrows. Indeed, to
distinguish them kind arrows could be written as (=>), and then
the kind of (->) is * => * => *.
We can regard (->) as a type constructor, or maybe rather a type
operator. Similarly, (=>) could be seen as a kind operator, and
as you suggest in your question we need to go one 'level' up. We
return to this later in the section Beyond Kinds, but first:
How the situation looks in a dependently typed language
You ask how the type signature would look for a function that takes a
value and returns a type. This is impossible to do in Haskell:
functions cannot return types! You can simulate this behaviour using
type classes and type families, but let us for illustration change
language to the dependently typed language
Agda. This is a
language with similar syntax as Haskell where juggling types together
with values is second nature.
To have something to work with, we define a data type of natural
numbers, for convenience in unary representation as in
Peano Arithmetic.
Data types are written in
GADT style:
data Nat : Set where
Zero : Nat
Succ : Nat -> Nat
Set is equivalent to * in Haskell, the "type" of all (small) types,
such as Natural numbers. This tells us that the type of Nat is
Set, whereas in Haskell, Nat would not have a type, it would have
a kind, namely *. In Agda there are no kinds, but everything has
a type.
We can now write a function that takes a value and returns a type.
Below is a the function which takes a natural number n and a type,
and makes iterates the List constructor n applied to this
type. (In Agda, [a] is usually written List a)
listOfLists : Nat -> Set -> Set
listOfLists Zero a = a
listOfLists (Succ n) a = List (listOfLists n a)
Some examples:
listOfLists Zero Bool = Bool
listOfLists (Succ Zero) Bool = List Bool
listOfLists (Succ (Succ Zero)) Bool = List (List Bool)
We can now make a map function that operates on listsOfLists.
We need to take a natural number that is the number of iterations
of the list constructor. The base cases are when the number is
Zero, then listOfList is just the identity and we apply the function.
The other is the empty list, and the empty list is returned.
The step case is a bit move involving: we apply mapN to the head
of the list, but this has one layer less of nesting, and mapN
to the rest of the list.
mapN : {a b : Set} -> (a -> b) -> (n : Nat) ->
listOfLists n a -> listOfLists n b
mapN f Zero x = f x
mapN f (Succ n) [] = []
mapN f (Succ n) (x :: xs) = mapN f n x :: mapN f (Succ n) xs
In the type of mapN, the Nat argument is named n, so the rest of
the type can depend on it. So this is an example of a type that
depends on a value.
As a side note, there are also two other named variables here,
namely the first arguments, a and b, of type Set. Type
variables are implicitly universally quantified in Haskell, but
here we need to spell them out, and specify their type, namely
Set. The brackets are there to make them invisible in the
definition, as they are always inferable from the other arguments.
Set is abstract
You ask what the constructors of (->) are. One thing to point out
is that Set (as well as * in Haskell) is abstract: you cannot
pattern match on it. So this is illegal Agda:
cheating : Set -> Bool
cheating Nat = True
cheating _ = False
Again, you can simulate pattern matching on types constructors in
Haskell using type families, one canoical example is given on
Brent Yorgey's blog.
Can we define -> in the Agda? Since we can return types from
functions, we can define an own version of -> as follows:
_=>_ : Set -> Set -> Set
a => b = a -> b
(infix operators are written _=>_ rather than (=>)) This
definition has very little content, and is very similar to doing a
type synonym in Haskell:
type Fun a b = a -> b
Beyond kinds: Turtles all the way down
As promised above, everything in Agda has a type, but then
the type of _=>_ must have a type! This touches your point
about sorts, which is, so to speak, one layer above Set (the kinds).
In Agda this is called Set1:
FunType : Set1
FunType = Set -> Set -> Set
And in fact, there is a whole hierarchy of them! Set is the type of
"small" types: data types in haskell. But then we have Set1,
Set2, Set3, and so on. Set1 is the type of types which mentions
Set. This hierarchy is to avoid inconsistencies such as Girard's
paradox.
As noticed in your question, -> is used for types and kinds in
Haskell, and the same notation is used for function space at all
levels in Agda. This must be regarded as a built in type operator,
and the constructors are lambda abstraction (or function
definitions). This hierarchy of types is similar to the setting in
System F omega, and more
information can be found in the later chapters of
Pierce's Types and Programming Languages.
Pure type systems
In Agda, types can depend on values, and functions can return types,
as illustrated above, and we also had an hierarchy of
types. Systematic investigation of different systems of the lambda
calculi is investigated in more detail in Pure Type Systems. A good
reference is
Lambda Calculi with Types by Barendregt,
where PTS are introduced on page 96, and many examples on page 99 and onwards.
You can also read more about the lambda cube there.
Firstly, the ?? -> ? -> * kind is a GHC-specific extension. The ? and ?? are just there to deal with unboxed types, which behave differently from just * (which has to be boxed, as far as I know). So ?? can be any normal type or an unboxed type (e.g. Int#); ? can be either of those or an unboxed tuple. There is more information here: Haskell Weird Kinds: Kind of (->) is ?? -> ? -> *
I think a function can't return an unboxed type because functions are lazy. Since a lazy value is either a value or a thunk, it has to be boxed. Boxed just means it is a pointer rather than just a value: it's like Integer() vs int in Java.
Since you are probably not going to be using unboxed types in LYAH-level code, you can imagine that the kind of -> is just * -> * -> *.
Since the ? and ?? are basically just more general version of *, they do not have anything to do with sorts or anything like that.
However, since -> is just a type constructor, you can actually partially apply it; for example, (->) e is an instance of Functor and Monad. Figuring out how to write these instances is a good mind-stretching exercise.
As far as value constructors go, they would have to just be lambdas (\ x ->) or function declarations. Since functions are so fundamental to the language, they get their own syntax.