I am trying to create a set of all the multiples of a number num under an upper limit max. I have written the following function in Haskell:
multiplesOf num max = [num*k | k <- [1..floor (max/num)]]
Why does this function throw the following error during run-time and how can it be fixed?
<interactive>:26:1: error:
• Ambiguous type variable ‘a0’ arising from a use of ‘print’
prevents the constraint ‘(Show a0)’ from being solved.
Probable fix: use a type annotation to specify what ‘a0’ should be.
These potential instances exist:
instance Show Ordering -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
instance Show Integer -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
instance Show a => Show (Maybe a) -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
...plus 22 others
...plus 18 instances involving out-of-scope types
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
• In a stmt of an interactive GHCi command: print it
This error was thrown when, for example, entering multiplesOf 3 1000.
There is no error in defining the function. The error is more when you want to use the function.
If we take a look at the type of the function you have constructed, we see:
multiplesOf :: (RealFrac t, Integral t) => t -> t -> [t]
So here the type of input and output values should both be Integral, and RealFrac. So that means that number should be Integral, but at the same time support real division. There are not much types that would fit these requirements.
This problem arises from the fact that you use (/) and floor here, which hints that max and num are RealFracs, but the result of floor is an Integral, and then you mulitply numbers out of this range again with num.
You can however reduce the amount of type constraints, by making use of div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a. This is thus integer division, and the result is truncated towards negative infinity, so we can implement the function like:
multiplesOf :: Integral i => i -> i -> [i]
multiplesOf num max = [num*k | k <- [1..div max num]]
or we can even save us the trouble of making divisions, multiplications, etc. and work with a range expression that does the work for us:
multiplesOf :: (Num n, Enum n) => n -> n -> [n]
multiplesOf num max = [num, (num+num) .. max]
The latter is even less constraint, since Integral i implies Real i and Enum i.
Related
So, I'm trying to write my own replacement for Prelude, and I have (^) implemented as such:
{-# LANGUAGE RebindableSyntax #-}
class Semigroup s where
infixl 7 *
(*) :: s -> s -> s
class (Semigroup m) => Monoid m where
one :: m
class (Ring a) => Numeric a where
fromIntegral :: (Integral i) => i -> a
fromFloating :: (Floating f) => f -> a
class (EuclideanDomain i, Numeric i, Enum i, Ord i) => Integral i where
toInteger :: i -> Integer
quot :: i -> i -> i
quot a b = let (q,r) = (quotRem a b) in q
rem :: i -> i -> i
rem a b = let (q,r) = (quotRem a b) in r
quotRem :: i -> i -> (i, i)
quotRem a b = let q = quot a b; r = rem a b in (q, r)
-- . . .
infixr 8 ^
(^) :: (Monoid m, Integral i) => m -> i -> m
(^) x i
| i == 0 = one
| True = let (d, m) = (divMod i 2)
rec = (x*x) ^ d in
if m == one then x*rec else rec
(Note that the Integral used here is one I defined, not the one in Prelude, although it is similar. Also, one is a polymorphic constant that's the identity under the monoidal operation.)
Numeric types are monoids, so I can try to do, say 2^3, but then the typechecker gives me:
*AlgebraicPrelude> 2^3
<interactive>:16:1: error:
* Could not deduce (Integral i0) arising from a use of `^'
from the context: Numeric m
bound by the inferred type of it :: Numeric m => m
at <interactive>:16:1-3
The type variable `i0' is ambiguous
These potential instances exist:
instance Integral Integer -- Defined at Numbers.hs:190:10
instance Integral Int -- Defined at Numbers.hs:207:10
* In the expression: 2 ^ 3
In an equation for `it': it = 2 ^ 3
<interactive>:16:3: error:
* Could not deduce (Numeric i0) arising from the literal `3'
from the context: Numeric m
bound by the inferred type of it :: Numeric m => m
at <interactive>:16:1-3
The type variable `i0' is ambiguous
These potential instances exist:
instance Numeric Integer -- Defined at Numbers.hs:294:10
instance Numeric Complex -- Defined at Numbers.hs:110:10
instance Numeric Rational -- Defined at Numbers.hs:306:10
...plus four others
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
* In the second argument of `(^)', namely `3'
In the expression: 2 ^ 3
In an equation for `it': it = 2 ^ 3
I get that this arises because Int and Integer are both Integral types, but then why is it that in normal Prelude I can do this just fine? :
Prelude> :t (2^)
(2^) :: (Num a, Integral b) => b -> a
Prelude> :t 3
3 :: Num p => p
Prelude> 2^3
8
Even though the signatures for partial application in mine look identical?
*AlgebraicPrelude> :t (2^)
(2^) :: (Numeric m, Integral i) => i -> m
*AlgebraicPrelude> :t 3
3 :: Numeric a => a
How would I make it so that 2^3 would in fact work, and thus give 8?
A Hindley-Milner type system doesn't really like having to default anything. In such a system, you want types to be either properly fixed (rigid, skolem) or properly polymorphic, but the concept of “this is, like, an integer... but if you prefer, I can also cast it to something else” as many other languages have doesn't really work out.
Consequently, Haskell sucks at defaulting. It doesn't have first-class support for that, only a pretty hacky ad-hoc, hard-coded mechanism which mainly deals with built-in number types, but fails at anything more involved.
You therefore should try to not rely on defaulting. My opinion is that the standard signature for ^ is unreasonable; a better signature would be
(^) :: Num a => a -> Int -> a
The Int is probably controversial – of course Integer would be safer in a sense; however, an exponent too big to fit in Int generally means the results will be totally off the scale anyway and couldn't feasibly be calculated by iterated multiplication; so this kind of expresses the intend pretty well. And it gives best performance for the extremely common situation where you just write x^2 or similar, which is something where you very definitely don't want to have to put an extra signature in the exponent.
In the rather fewer cases where you have a concrete e.g. Integer number and want to use it in the exponent, you can always shove in an explicit fromIntegral. That's not nice, but rather less of an inconvenience.
As a general rule, I try to avoid† any function-arguments that are more polymorphic than the results. Haskell's polymorphism works best “backwards”, i.e. the opposite way as in dynamic language: the caller requests what type the result should be, and the compiler figures out from this what the arguments should be. This works pretty much always, because as soon as the result is somehow used in the main program, the types in the whole computation have to be linked to a tree structure.
OTOH, inferring the type of the result is often problematic: arguments may be optional, may themselves be linked only to the result, or given as polymorphic constants like Haskell number literals. So, if i doesn't turn up in the result of ^, avoid letting in occur in the arguments either.
†“Avoid” doesn't mean I don't ever write them, I just don't do so unless there's a good reason.
What is wrong with that:
partin a = [floor a, a-floor a]
Error :
<interactive>:342:1: error:
• Ambiguous type variable ‘a0’ arising from a use of ‘print’
prevents the constraint ‘(Show a0)’ from being solved.
Probable fix: use a type annotation to specify what ‘a0’ should be.
These potential instances exist:
instance Show Ordering -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
instance Show Integer -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
instance Show a => Show (Maybe a) -- Defined in ‘GHC.Show’
...plus 22 others
...plus 16 instances involving out-of-scope types
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
• In a stmt of an interactive GHCi command: print it
I can't give a complete answer without seeing the full extent of what you're doing, but here's one definite problem that is almost certainly involved. You write
partin a = [floor a, a-floor a]
The type of floor is
floor :: (RealFrac a, Integral b) => a -> b
The type of (-) is
(-) :: Num a => a -> a -> a
Since you use a - floor a, you're forcing the type of a to be an instance of both the RealFrac class and the Integral class. However, there is no such type in the standard library (and it doesn't make a lot of sense). As a result, GHC certainly will not be able to select the type for you from its very limited collection of defaults. Things might work out a lot better if you use
partin a = [fromIntegral (floor a), a - fromIntegral (floor a :: Int)]
But note that it doesn't really make much sense to have a list here, since you're trying to divide a number into two components of different types. You might be better off with
partin a = (floor a, a - fromIntegral (floor a :: Int))
While learning Haskell I'm trying to write a function that given a number will give its successor in a Collatz sequence:
next :: (Fractional a, Integral a) => a -> a
next x
| odd x = x * 3 + 1
| otherwise = x / 2
When I run next 7 I get:
<interactive>:150:1: error:
* Ambiguous type variable `a0' arising from a use of `print'
prevents the constraint `(Show a0)' from being solved.
Probable fix: use a type annotation to specify what `a0' should be.
These potential instances exist:
instance Show Ordering -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show Integer -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show a => Show (Maybe a) -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
...plus 22 others
...plus 12 instances involving out-of-scope types
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
* In a stmt of an interactive GHCi command: print it
Two questions:
Am I using the best class constraints in my signature?
Assuming I am, how can I show the result of next 7 ?
I believe Collatz sequence is an integer sequence, so it wouldn't be necessary making the result Fractional.
next :: (Integral a) => a -> a
To be able to get an integer from a division, you should use div function. Note that division will always be exact as you are going to divide only even numbers:
next x
| odd x = x * 3 + 1
| otherwise = x `div` 2
This is an example in Learn You A Haskell, chapter on higher order functions:
compareWithHundred :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> Ordering
compareWithHundred x = compare 100 x
While the idea of the function is clear for me, I'm not sure why type signature is (Num a, Ord a). We only pass integer that is to be compared to the function, of type Int. What Ord stands for here, and why is implicitly passed argument in type signature?
That's not the only possible signature for this signature. It happens to be the most general one. compareWithHundred :: Int -> Ordering is actually a possible instantiation – the polymorphic a argument can be instatiated with any orderable number type, which does sure enough include Int, but also Integer, Rational, Double...
Prelude> let compareWithHundred :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> Ordering; compareWithHundred x = compare 100 x
Prelude> compareWithHundred (99 :: Int)
GT
Prelude> compareWithHundred (100.3 :: Double)
LT
Not all number types permit you to order-compare them though – the classical example where this is not possible are complex numbers (which have “more than one direction” in which you could order them).
Prelude Data.Complex> compareWithHundred (100 :+ 30 :: Complex Double)
<interactive>:10:1:
No instance for (Ord (Complex Double))
arising from a use of ‘compareWithHundred’
In the expression: compareWithHundred (100 :+ 30 :: Complex Double)
In an equation for ‘it’:
it = compareWithHundred (100 :+ 30 :: Complex Double)
Hence you need to require both that the argument is a number (so there exists a value 100 which to compare with) and that the argument is in the Ord class. This combined constrained is written (Num a, Ord a).
I have something to add, in case you couldn't gather something from leftaroundabout's thorough answer.
Everything to the left of => in a type signature is a constraint. Read the type like this:
compareWithHundred :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> Ordering
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^
constraints | |
argument type |
result type
So you only pass one argument to the function because there is only one argument in the type signature, a. a is a type variable, and can be replaced with any type as long as that type satisfies the constraints.
The Num a says that whatever you replace a with has to be numeric (so it can be Int, Integer, Double, ...), and the Ord a says that it has to be comparable. leftroundabout's answer goes into more detail about why you need both, I just wanted to make sure you knew how to read the signature.
So it's perfectly legal in one sense to say compareWithHundred "foobar", the type checker says that that expression's type is Ordering, but then it will fail later when it tries to check that there is a Num String instance.
I hope this helps.
I tested the numeric coercion by using GHCI:
>> let c = 1 :: Integer
>> 1 / 2
0.5
>> c / 2
<interactive>:15:1: error:
• No instance for (Fractional Integer) arising from a use of ‘/’
• In the expression: c / 2
In an equation for ‘it’: it = c / 2
>> :t (/)
(/) :: Fractional a => a -> a -> a -- (/) needs Fractional type
>> (fromInteger c) / 2
0.5
>>:t fromInteger
fromInteger :: Num a => Integer -> a -- Just convert the Integer to Num not to Fractional
I can use fromInteger function to convert a Integer type to Num (fromInteger has the type fromInteger :: Num a => Integer -> a), but I cannot understand that how can the type Num be converted to Fractional implicitly?
I know that if an instance has type Fractional it must have type Num (class Num a => Fractional a where), but does it necessary that if an instance has type Num it can be used as an instance with Fractional type?
#mnoronha Thanks for your detailed reply. There is only one question confuse me. I know the reason that type a cannot be used in function (/) is that type a is with type Integer which is not an instance of type class Fractional (the function (/) requires that the type of arguments must be instance of Fractional). What I don't understand is that even by calling fromInteger to convert the type integer to atype which be an instance of Num, it does not mean a type be an instance of Fractional (because Fractional type class is more constrained than Num type class, so a type may not implement some functions required by Fractional type class). If a type does not fully fit the condition Fractional type class requires, how can it be use in the function (/) which asks the arguments type be instance of Fractional. Sorry for not native speaker and really thanks for your patience!
I tested that if a type only fits the parent type class, it cannot be used in a function which requires more constrained type class.
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
module Main where
class ParentAPI a where
printPar :: int -> a -> String
class (ParentAPI a) => SubAPI a where
printSub :: a -> String
data ParentDT = ParentDT Int
instance ParentAPI ParentDT where
printPar i p = "par"
testF :: (SubAPI a) => a -> String
testF a = printSub a
main = do
let m = testF $ ParentDT 10000
return ()
====
test-typeclass.hs:19:11: error:
• No instance for (SubAPI ParentDT) arising from a use of ‘testF’
• In the expression: testF $ ParentDT 10000
In an equation for ‘m’: m = testF $ ParentDT 10000
In the expression:
do { let m = testF $ ParentDT 10000;
return () }
I have found a doc explaining the numeric overloading ambiguity very clearly and may help others with the same confusion.
https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/numbers.html
First, note that both Fractional and Num are not types, but type classes. You can read more about them in the documentation or elsewhere, but the basic idea is that they define behaviors for types. Num is the most inclusive numeric typeclass, defining behaviors functions like (+), negate, which are common to pretty much all "numeric types." Fractional is a more constrained type class that describes "fractional numbers, supporting real division."
If we look at the type class definition for Fractional, we see that it is actually defined as a subclass of Num. That is, for a type a to be an have an instance Fractional, it must first be a member of the typeclass Num:
class Num a => Fractional a where
Let's consider some type that is constrained by Fractional. We know it implements the basic behaviors common to all members of Num. However, we can't expect it to implement behaviors from other type classes unless multiple constraints are specified (ex. (Num a, Ord a) => a. Take, for example, the function div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a (integral division). If we try to apply the function with an argument that is constrained by the typeclass Fractional (ex. 1.2 :: Fractional t => t), we encounter an error. Type classes restrict the sort of values a function deals with, allowing us to write more specific and useful functions for types that share behaviors.
Now let's look at the more general typeclass, Num. If we have a type variable a that is only constrained by Num a => a, we know that it will implement the (few) basic behaviors included in the Num type class definition, but we'd need more context to know more. What does this mean practically? We know from our Fractional class declaration that functions defined in the Fractional type class are applied to Num types. However, these Num types are a subset of all possible Num types.
The importance of all this, ultimately, has to do with the ground types (where type class constraints are most commonly seen in functions). a represents a type, with the notation Num a => a telling us that a is a type that includes an instance of the type class Num. a could be any of the types that include the instance (ex. Int, Natural). Thus, if we give a value a general type Num a => a, we know it can implement functions for every type where there is a type class defined. For example:
ghci>> let a = 3 :: (Num a => a)
ghci>> a / 2
1.5
Whereas if we'd defined a as a specific type or in terms of a more constrained type class, we would have not been able to expect the same results:
ghci>> let a = 3 :: Integral a => a
ghci>> a / 2
-- Error: ambiguous type variable
or
ghci>> let a = 3 :: Integer
ghci>> a / 2
-- Error: No instance for (Fractional Integer) arising from a use of ‘/’
(Edit responding to followup question)
This is definitely not the most concrete explanation, so readers feel free to suggest something more rigorous.
Suppose we have a function a that is just a type class constrained version of the id function:
a :: Num a => a -> a
a = id
Let's look at type signatures for some applications of the function:
ghci>> :t (a 3)
(a 3) :: Num a => a
ghci>> :t (a 3.2)
(a 3.2) :: Fractional a => a
While our function had the general type signature, as a result of its application the the type of the application is more restricted.
Now, let's look at the function fromIntegral :: (Num b, Integral a) => a -> b. Here, the return type is the general Num b, and this will be true regardless of input. I think the best way to think of this difference is in terms of precision. fromIntegral takes a more constrained type and makes it less constrained, so we know we'll always expect the result will be constrained by the type class from the signature. However, if we give an input constraint, the actual input could be more restricted than the constraint and the resulting type would reflect that.
The reason why this works comes down to the way universal quantification works. To help explain this I am going to add in explicit forall to the type signatures (which you can do yourself if you enable -XExplicitForAll or any other forall related extension), but if you just removed them (forall a. ... becomes just ...), everything will work fine.
The thing to remember is that when a function involves a type constrained by a typeclass, then what that means is that you can input/output ANY type within that typeclass, so it's actually better to have a less constrained typeclass.
So:
fromInteger :: forall a. Num a => Integer -> a
fromInteger 5 :: forall a. Num a => a
Means that you have a value that is of EVERY Num type. So not only can you use it in a function taking it in a Fractional, you could use it in a function that only takes in MyWeirdTypeclass a => ... as long as there is one single type that implements both Num and MyWeirdTypeclass. Hence why you can get the following just fine:
fromInteger 5 / 2 :: forall a. Fractional a => a
Now of course once you decide to divide by 2, it now wants the output type to be Fractional, and thus 5 and 2 will be interpreted as some Fractional type, so we won't run into issues where we try to divide Int values, as trying to make the above have type Int will fail to type check.
This is really powerful and awesome, but very much unfamiliar, as generally other languages either don't support this, or only support it for input arguments (e.g print in most languages can take in any printable type).
Now you may be curious when the whole superclass / subclass stuff comes into play, so when you are defining a function that takes in something of type Num a => a, then because a user can pass in ANY Num type, you are correct that in this situation you cannot use functions defined on some subclass of Num, only things that work on ALL Num values, like *:
double :: forall a. Num a => a -> a
double n = n * 2 -- in here `n` really has type `exists a. Num a => a`
So the following does not type check, and it wouldn't type check in any language, because you don't know that the argument is a Fractional.
halve :: Num a => a -> a
halve n = n / 2 -- in here `n` really has type `exists a. Num a => a`
What we have up above with fromInteger 5 / 2 is more equivalent to the following, higher rank function, note that the forall within parenthesis is required, and you need to use -XRankNTypes:
halve :: forall b. Fractional b => (forall a. Num a => a) -> b
halve n = n / 2 -- in here `n` has type `forall a. Num a => a`
Since this time you are taking in EVERY Num type (just like the fromInteger 5 you were dealing with before), not just ANY Num type. Now the downside of this function (and one reason why no one wants it) is that you really do have to pass in something of EVERY Num type:
halve (2 :: Int) -- does not work
halve (3 :: Integer) -- does not work
halve (1 :: Double) -- does not work
halve (4 :: Num a => a) -- works!
halve (fromInteger 5) -- also works!
I hope that clears things up a little. All you need for the fromInteger 5 / 2 to work is that there exists ONE single type that is both a Num and a Fractional, or in other words just a Fractional, since Fractional implies Num. Type defaulting doesn't help much with clearing up this confusion, as what you may not realize is that GHC is just arbitrarily picking Double, it could have picked any Fractional.