If I do the following
functionS (x,y) = y
:t functionS
functionS :: (a, b) -> b
Now with this function:
functionC x y = if (x > y) then True else False
:t function
I would expect to get:
functionC :: (Ord a, Ord b) => a -> b -> Bool
But I get:
functionC :: Ord a => a -> a -> Bool
GHCI seems to be ok with the 2 previous results, but why does it give me the second? Why the type variable a AND b aren't defined?
I think you might be misreading type signatures. Through no fault of your own––the examples you using to inform your thinking are kind of confusing. In particular, in your tuple example
functionS :: (a,b) -> b
functionS (x,y) = y
The notation (_,_) means two different things. In the first line, (a,b) refers to a type, the type of pairs whose first element has type a and second has type b. In the second line, (x,y) refers to a specfiic pair, where x has type a and y has type b. While this "pun" provides a useful mnemonic, it can be confusing as you are first getting the hang of it. I would rather that the type of pairs be a regular type constructor:
functionS :: Pair a b -> b
functionS (x,y) = y
So, moving on to your question. In the signature you are given
functionC :: Ord a => a -> a -> Bool
a is a type. Ord a says that elements of the type a are orderable with respect to each other. The function takes two arguments of the same type. Some types that are orderable are Integer (numerically), String (lexicographically), and a bunch of others. That means that you can tell which of two Integers is the smaller, or which of two Strings are the smaller. However we don't necessarily know how to tell whether an Integer is smaller than a String (and this is good! Have you seen what kinds of shenanigans javascript has to do to support untyped equality? Haskell doesn't have to solve this problem at all!). So that's what this signature is saying –– there is only one single orderable type, a, and the function takes two elements of this same type.
You might still be wondering why functionS's signature has two different type variables. It's because there is no constraint confining them to be the same, such as having to order them against each other. functionS works equally well with a pair where both components are integers as when one is an integer and the other is a string. It doesn't matter. And Haskell always picks the most general type that works. So if they are not forced to be the same, they will be different.
There are more technical ways to explain all this, but I felt an intuitive explanation was in order. I hope it's helpful!
Related
New to Haskell so sorry if this is very basic
This example is taken from "Real World Haskell" -
ghci> :type fst
fst :: (a, b) -> a
They show the type of the fst function and then follow it with this paragraph...
"The result type of fst is a. We've already mentioned that parametric polymorphism makes the real type inaccessible: fst doesn't have enough information to construct a value of type a, nor can it turn an a into a b. So the only possible valid behaviour (omitting infinite loops or crashes) it can have is to return the first element of the pair."
I feel like I am missing the fundamental point of the paragraph, and perhaps something important about Haskell. Why couldn't the fst function return type b? Why couldn't it take the tuple as a param, but simply return an Int ( or any other type that is NOT a)? I don't understand why it MUST return type a?
Thanks
If it did any of those things, its type would change. What the quote is saying is that, given that we know fst is of type (a, b) -> a, we can make those deductions about it. If it had a different type, we would not be able to do so.
For instance, see that
snd :: (a, b) -> a
snd (x, y) = y
does not type-check, and so we know a value of type (a, b) -> a cannot behave like snd.
Parametricity is basically the fact that a polymorphic function of a certain type must obey certain laws by construction — i.e., there is no well-typed expression of that type that does not obey them. So, for it to be possible to prove things about fst with it, we must first know fst's type.
Note especially the word polymorphism there: we can't do the same kind of deductions about non-polymorphic types. For instance,
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = a
type-checks, but so does
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = 42
and even
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = length b
Parametricity relies crucially on the fact that a polymorphic function can't "look" at the types it is called with. So the only value of type a that fst knows about is the one it's given: the first element of the tuple.
The point is that once you have that type, the implementation options are greatly limited. If you returned an Int, then your type would be (a,b) -> Int. Since a could be anything, we can't gin one up out of thin air in the implementation without resorting to undefined, and so must return the one given to us by the caller.
You should read the Theorems for Free article.
Let's try to add some more hand-waving to that already given by Real World Haskell. Lets try to convince ourselves that given that we have a function fst with type (a,b) -> a the only total function it can be is the following one:
fst (x,y) = x
First of all, we cannot return anything other then a value of type a, that is in the premise that fst has type (a,b) -> a, so we cannot have fst (x,y) = y or fst (x,y) = 1 because that does not have the correct type.
Now, as RWH says, if I give fst an (Int,Int), fst doesn't know these are Ints, furthermore, a or b are not required to belong to any type class so fst has no available values or functions associated with a or b.
So fst only knows about the a value and the b value that I give it and I can't turn b into an a (It can't make a b -> a function) so it must return the given a value.
This isn't actually just magical hand waving, one can actually deduce what possible expressions there are of a given polymorphic type. There is actually a program called djinn that does exactly that.
The point here is that both a and b are type variables (that might be the same, but that's not needed). Anyway, since for a given tuple of two elements, fst returns always the first element, the returned type must be always the same as the type for the first element.
The fundamental thing you're probably missing is this:
In most programming languages, if you say "this function returns any type", it means that the function can decide what type of value it actually returns.
In Haskell, if you say "this function returns any type", it means that the caller gets to decide what type that should be. (!)
So if I you write foo :: Int -> x, it can't just return a String, because I might not ask it for a String. I might ask for a Customer, or a ThreadId, or anything.
Obviously, there's no way that foo can know how to create a value of every possible type, even types that don't exist yet. In short, it is impossible to write foo. Everything you try will give you type errors, and won't compile.
(Caveat: There is a way to do it. foo could loop forever, or throw an exception. But it cannot return a valid value.)
There's no way for a function to be able to create values of any possible type. But it's perfectly possible for a function to move data around without caring what type it is. Therefore, if you see a function that accepts any kind of data, the only thing it can be doing with it is to move it around.
Alternatively, if the type has to belong to a specific class, then the function can use the methods of that class on it. (Could. It doesn't have to, but it can if it wants to.)
Fundamentally, this is why you can actually tell what a function does just by looking at its type signature. The type signature tells you what the function "knows" about the data it's going to be given, and hence what possible operations it might perform. This is why searching for a Haskell function by its type signature is so damned useful.
You've heard the expression "in Haskell, if it compiles, it usually works right"? Well, this is why. ;-)
A professor teaching a class I am attending claimed the following.
A higher-order function could have only one arrow when checking its type.
I don't agree with this statement I tried to prove it is wrong. I tried to set up some function but then I found that my functions probably aren't higher-order functions. Here is what I have:
f x y z = x + y + z
f :: a -> a-> a -> a
g = f 3
g :: a -> a -> a
h = g 5
h :: a -> a
At the end of the day, I think my proof was wrong, but I am still not convinced that higher-order functions can only have more than one arrow when checking the type.
So, is there any resource or perhaps someone could prove that higher-order function may have only one arrow?
Strictly speaking, the statement is correct. This is because the usual definition of the term "higher-order function", taken here from Wikipedia, is a function that does one or both of the following:
takes a function as an argument, or
returns a function as its result
It is clear then that no function with a single arrow in its type signature can be a higher-order function, because in a signature a -> b, there is no "room" to create something of the form x -> y on either side of an arrow - there simply aren't enough arrows.
(This argument actually has a significant flaw, which you may have spotted, and which I'll address below. But it's probably true "in spirit" for what your professor meant.)
The converse is also, strictly speaking, true in Haskell - although not in most other languages. The distinguishing feature of Haskell here is that functions are curried. For example, a function like (+), whose signature is:
a -> a -> a
(with a Num a constraint that I'll ignore because it could just confuse the issue if we're supposed to be counting "arrows"), is usually thought of as being a function of two arguments: it takes 2 as and produces another a. In most languages, which all of course have an analagous function/operator, this would never be described as a higher-order function. But in Haskell, because functions are curried, the above signature is really just a shorthand for the parenthesised version:
a -> (a -> a)
which clearly is a higher-order function. It takes an a and produces a function of type a -> a. (Recall, from above, that returning a function is one of the things that characterises a HOF.) In Haskell, as I said, these two signatures are one and the same thing. (+) really is a higher-order function - we just often don't notice that because we intend to feed it two arguments, by which we really mean to feed it one argument, result in a function, then feed that function the second argument. Thanks to Haskell's convenient, parenthesis-free, syntax for applying functions to arguments, there isn't really any distinction. (This again contrasts from non-functional languages: the addition "function" there always takes exactly 2 arguments, and only giving it one will usually be an error. If the language has first-class functions, you can indeed define the curried form, for example this in Python:
def curried_add(x):
return lambda y: x + y
but this is clearly a different function from the straightforward function of two arguments that you would normally use, and usually less convenient to apply because you need to call it as curried_add(x)(y) rather than just say add(x,y).
So, if we take currying into account, the statement of your professor is strictly true.
Well, with the following exception, which I alluded to above. I've been assuming that something with a signature of the form
a -> b
is not a HOF*. That of course doesn't apply if a or b is a function. Often, that function's type will include an arrow, and we're tacitly assuming here that neither a or b contains arrows. Well, Haskell has type synonyms, so we could easily define, say:
type MyFunctionType = Int -> Int
and then a function with signature MyFunctionType -> a or a -> MyFunctionType is most certainly a HOF, even though it doesn't "look like one" from just a glance at the signature.
*To be clear here,a and b refer to specific types which are as yet unspecified - I am not referring to an actual signature a -> b which would mean a polymorphic function that applies to any types a and b, which would not necessarily be functions.
Your functions are higher order. Indeed, take for example your function:
f :: a -> a -> a -> a
f x y z = x + y + z
This is a less verbose form of:
f :: a -> (a -> (a -> a))
So it is a function that takes an a and returns a function. A higher order function is a function that (a) takes a function as parameter, or (b) returns a function. Both can be true at the same time. Here your function f returns a function.
A function thus always has type a -> b with a the input type, and b the return type. In case a has an arrow (like (c -> d) -> b), then it is a higher order function, since it takes a function as parameter.
If b has an arrow, like a -> (c -> d), then this is a higher order function as well, since it returns a function.
Yes, as Haskell functions are curried always, I can come up with minimal examples of higher order functions and examples:
1) Functions that takes a function at least as parameter, such as:
apply :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
apply f x = f x
2) at least 3 arguments:
sum3 :: Int -> Int -> Int
sum3 a b c = a + b + c
so that can be read as:
sum3 :: Int -> (Int -> Int)
I am new to Haskell and still kind of confused with some notations.
In the function header, i know that
func :: [Int] -> Int
indicates that the input is a list of integers and the output is an integer.
How does this differ from
func :: (Ord a) => [a] -> a
I am asking because they seem to be same, and I wonder why we use different notations for something identical.
The first one is very simple and as you have said, it takes a list of Int and returns a single Int.
The second one, however, can accept many different types for its input (including types you define yourself).
The key is (Ord a). What this is saying is that it has to be a list of orderable types, and if it satisfies that requirement then it is a valid type that can be passed into this particular function.
The Ord typeclass includes the following members:
<
<=
>
>=
So
func :: (Ord a) => [a] -> a
could potentially be a function that takes a list of orderable types and returns the maximum member of that list, as an example. This could be [Int], [Integer], [Float], and many other things.
Can someone explain to me step by step what this function means?
select :: (a->a->Bool) -> a -> a -> a
As the comments pointed out, this is not a function definition, but just a type signature. It says, for any type a which you are free to choose, this function expects:
A function that takes two values of type a and gives a Bool
Two values of type a
and it returns another value of type a. So for example, we could call:
select (<) 1 2
where a is Int, since (<) is a function that takes two Ints and returns a Bool. We could not call:
select isPrefixOf 1 2
because isPrefixOf :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> Bool -- i.e. it takes two lists (provided that the element type supports Equality), but numbers are not lists.
Signatures can tell us quite a lot, however, due to parametericity (aka free theorems). The details are quite techincal, but we can intuit that select must return one of its two arguments, because it has no other way to construct values of type a about which it knows nothing (and this can be proven).
But beyond that we can't really tell. Often you can tell almost certainly what a function does by its signature. But as I explored this signature, I found that there were actually quite a few functions it could be, from the most obvious:
select f x y = if f x y then x else y
to some rather exotic
select f x y = if f x x && f y y then x else y
And the name select doesn't help much -- it seems to tell us that it will return one of the two arguments, but the signature already told us that.
New to Haskell so sorry if this is very basic
This example is taken from "Real World Haskell" -
ghci> :type fst
fst :: (a, b) -> a
They show the type of the fst function and then follow it with this paragraph...
"The result type of fst is a. We've already mentioned that parametric polymorphism makes the real type inaccessible: fst doesn't have enough information to construct a value of type a, nor can it turn an a into a b. So the only possible valid behaviour (omitting infinite loops or crashes) it can have is to return the first element of the pair."
I feel like I am missing the fundamental point of the paragraph, and perhaps something important about Haskell. Why couldn't the fst function return type b? Why couldn't it take the tuple as a param, but simply return an Int ( or any other type that is NOT a)? I don't understand why it MUST return type a?
Thanks
If it did any of those things, its type would change. What the quote is saying is that, given that we know fst is of type (a, b) -> a, we can make those deductions about it. If it had a different type, we would not be able to do so.
For instance, see that
snd :: (a, b) -> a
snd (x, y) = y
does not type-check, and so we know a value of type (a, b) -> a cannot behave like snd.
Parametricity is basically the fact that a polymorphic function of a certain type must obey certain laws by construction — i.e., there is no well-typed expression of that type that does not obey them. So, for it to be possible to prove things about fst with it, we must first know fst's type.
Note especially the word polymorphism there: we can't do the same kind of deductions about non-polymorphic types. For instance,
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = a
type-checks, but so does
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = 42
and even
myFst :: (Int, String) -> Int
myFst (a, b) = length b
Parametricity relies crucially on the fact that a polymorphic function can't "look" at the types it is called with. So the only value of type a that fst knows about is the one it's given: the first element of the tuple.
The point is that once you have that type, the implementation options are greatly limited. If you returned an Int, then your type would be (a,b) -> Int. Since a could be anything, we can't gin one up out of thin air in the implementation without resorting to undefined, and so must return the one given to us by the caller.
You should read the Theorems for Free article.
Let's try to add some more hand-waving to that already given by Real World Haskell. Lets try to convince ourselves that given that we have a function fst with type (a,b) -> a the only total function it can be is the following one:
fst (x,y) = x
First of all, we cannot return anything other then a value of type a, that is in the premise that fst has type (a,b) -> a, so we cannot have fst (x,y) = y or fst (x,y) = 1 because that does not have the correct type.
Now, as RWH says, if I give fst an (Int,Int), fst doesn't know these are Ints, furthermore, a or b are not required to belong to any type class so fst has no available values or functions associated with a or b.
So fst only knows about the a value and the b value that I give it and I can't turn b into an a (It can't make a b -> a function) so it must return the given a value.
This isn't actually just magical hand waving, one can actually deduce what possible expressions there are of a given polymorphic type. There is actually a program called djinn that does exactly that.
The point here is that both a and b are type variables (that might be the same, but that's not needed). Anyway, since for a given tuple of two elements, fst returns always the first element, the returned type must be always the same as the type for the first element.
The fundamental thing you're probably missing is this:
In most programming languages, if you say "this function returns any type", it means that the function can decide what type of value it actually returns.
In Haskell, if you say "this function returns any type", it means that the caller gets to decide what type that should be. (!)
So if I you write foo :: Int -> x, it can't just return a String, because I might not ask it for a String. I might ask for a Customer, or a ThreadId, or anything.
Obviously, there's no way that foo can know how to create a value of every possible type, even types that don't exist yet. In short, it is impossible to write foo. Everything you try will give you type errors, and won't compile.
(Caveat: There is a way to do it. foo could loop forever, or throw an exception. But it cannot return a valid value.)
There's no way for a function to be able to create values of any possible type. But it's perfectly possible for a function to move data around without caring what type it is. Therefore, if you see a function that accepts any kind of data, the only thing it can be doing with it is to move it around.
Alternatively, if the type has to belong to a specific class, then the function can use the methods of that class on it. (Could. It doesn't have to, but it can if it wants to.)
Fundamentally, this is why you can actually tell what a function does just by looking at its type signature. The type signature tells you what the function "knows" about the data it's going to be given, and hence what possible operations it might perform. This is why searching for a Haskell function by its type signature is so damned useful.
You've heard the expression "in Haskell, if it compiles, it usually works right"? Well, this is why. ;-)