Is there any way to get and return the type of a function in Haskell?
Suppose that I have this kind of function:
foo :: Int -> Int -> String
foo a b = (show a ++ show b ++ "hello")
From the code above, what I actually want is to get this kind of tuple as a return value of function:
> getTypeTuple foo
(Int, Int, String)
As far as I know, the type itself cannot be treated as a part of expressions, so I guess it wouldn't be possible to have this kind of feature at the runtime in Haskell. (Static type!!)
Then will there be any similar alternative, or preprocessor feature in Haskell?
Edit: I think what I really want is the Haskell implementation of :t command in GHCi.
You can use Template Haskell to do your metaprogramming, and that allows you to get the type of a function. See this question for how to get the type.
Related
I have a function
mySucc :: (Enum a, Bounded a, Eq a, Show a) => a -> Maybe a
mySucc int
| int == maxBound = Nothing
| otherwise = Just $ succ int
When I want to print the output of this function in ghci, Haskell seems to be confused as to which instance of Show to use. Why is that? Shouldn't Haskell automatically resolve a's type during runtime and use it's Show?
My limited understanding of type class is that, if you mention a type (in my case a) and say that it belongs to a type class (Show), Haskell should automatically resolve the type. Isn't that how it resolves Bounded, Enum and Eq? Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Shouldn't Haskell automatically resolve a's type during runtime and use it's Show?
Generally speaking, types don't exist at runtime. The compiler typechecks your code, resolves any polymorphism, and then erases the types. But, this is kind of orthogonal to your main question.
My limited understanding of type class is that, if you mention a type (in my case a) and say that it belongs to a type class (Show), Haskell should automatically resolve the type
No. The compiler will automatically resolve the instance. What that means is, you don't need to explicitly pass a showing-method into your function. For example, instead of the function
showTwice :: Show a => a -> String
showTwice x = show x ++ show x
you could have a function that doesn't use any typeclass
showTwice' :: (a -> String) -> a -> String
showTwice' show' x = show' x ++ show' x
which can be used much the same way as showTwice if you give it the standard show as the first argument. But that argument would need to be manually passed around at each call site. That's what you can avoid by using the type class instead, but this still requires the type to be known first.
(Your mySucc doesn't actually use show in any way at all, so you might as well omit the Show a constraint completely.)
When your call to mySucc appears in a larger expression, chances are the type will in fact also be inferred automatically. For example, mySucc (length "bla") will use a ~ Int, because the result of length is fixed to Int; or mySucc 'y' will use a ~ Char. However, if all the subexpressions are polymorphic (and in Haskell, even number literals are polymorphic), then the compiler won't have any indication what type you actually want. In that case you can always specify it explicitly, either in the argument
> mySucc (3 :: Int)
Just 4
or in the result
> mySucc 255 :: Maybe Word8
Nothing
Are you writing mySucc 1? In this case, you get a error because 1 literal is a polymorphic value of type Num a => a.
Try calling mySucc 1 :: Maybe Int and it will work.
I'm learning Haskell and trying to understand the reasoning behind it's syntax design at the same time. Most of the syntax is beautiful.
But since :: normally is like a type annotation, How is it that this works:
Input: minBound::Int
Output: -2147483648
There is no separate operator: :: is a type annotation in that example. Perhaps the best way to understand this is to consider this code:
main = print (f minBound)
f :: Int -> Int
f = id
This also prints -2147483648. The use of minBound is inferred to be an Int because it is the parameter to f. Once the type has been inferred, the value for that type is known.
Now, back to:
main = print (minBound :: Int)
This works in the same way, except that minBound is known to be an Int because of the type annotation, rather than for some more complex reason. The :: isn't some binary operation; it just directs the compiler that the expression minBound has the type Int. Once again, since the type is known, the value can be determined from the type class.
:: still means "has type" in that example.
There are two ways you can use :: to write down type information. Type declarations, and inline type annotations. Presumably you've been used to seeing type declarations, as in:
plusOne :: Integer -> Integer
plusOne = (+1)
Here the plusOne :: Integer -> Integer line is a separate declaration about the identifier plusOne, informing the compiler what its type should be. It is then actually defined on the following line in another declaration.
The other way you can use :: is that you can embed type information in the middle of any expression. Any expression can be followed by :: and then a type, and it means the same thing as the expression on its own except with the additional constraint that it must have the given type. For example:
foo = ('a', 2) :: (Char, Integer)
bar = ('a', 2 :: Integer)
Note that for foo I attached the entire expression, so it is very little different from having used a separate foo :: (Char, Integer) declaration. bar is more interesting, since I gave a type annotation for just the 2 but used that within a larger expression (for the whole pair). 2 :: Integer is still an expression for the value 2; :: is not an operator that takes 2 as input and computes some result. Indeed if the 2 were already used in a context that requires it to be an Integer then the :: Integer annotation changes nothing at all. But because 2 is normally polymorphic in Haskell (it could fit into a context requiring an Integer, or a Double, or a Complex Float) the type annotation pins down that the type of this particular expression is Integer.
The use is that it avoids you having to restructure your code to have a separate declaration for the expression you want to attach a type to. To do that with my simple example would have required something like this:
two :: Integer
two = 2
baz = ('a', two)
Which adds a relatively large amount of extra code just to have something to attach :: Integer to. It also means when you're reading bar, you have to go read a whole separate definition to know what the second element of the pair is, instead of it being clearly stated right there.
So now we can answer your direct question. :: has no special or particular meaning with the Bounded type class or with minBound in particular. However it's useful with minBound (and other type class methods) because the whole point of type classes is to have overloaded names that do different things depending on the type. So selecting the type you want is useful!
minBound :: Int is just an expression using the value of minBound under the constraint that this particular time minBound is used as an Int, and so the value is -2147483648. As opposed to minBound :: Char which is '\NUL', or minBound :: Bool which is False.
None of those options mean anything different from using minBound where there was already some context requiring it to be an Int, or Char, or Bool; it's just a very quick and simple way of adding that context if there isn't one already.
It's worth being clear that both forms of :: are not operators as such. There's nothing terribly wrong with informally using the word operator for it, but be aware that "operator" has a specific meaning in Haskell; it refers to symbolic function names like +, *, &&, etc. Operators are first-class citizens of Haskell: we can bind them to variables1 and pass them around. For example I can do:
(|+|) = (+)
x = 1 |+| 2
But you cannot do this with ::. It is "hard-wired" into the language, just as the = symbol used for introducing definitions is, or the module Main ( main ) where syntax for module headers. As such there are lots of things that are true about Haskell operators that are not true about ::, so you need to be careful not to confuse yourself or others when you use the word "operator" informally to include ::.
1 Actually an operator is just a particular kind of variable name that is applied by writing it between two arguments instead of before them. The same function can be bound to operator and ordinary variables, even at the same time.
Just to add another example, with Monads you can play a little like this:
import Control.Monad
anyMonad :: (Monad m) => Int -> m Int
anyMonad x = (pure x) >>= (\x -> pure (x*x)) >>= (\x -> pure (x+2))
$> anyMonad 4 :: [Int]
=> [18]
$> anyMonad 4 :: Either a Int
=> Right 18
$> anyMonad 4 :: Maybe Int
=> Just 18
it's a generic example telling you that the functionality may change with the type, another example:
I have a record type say
data Rec {
recNumber :: Int
, recName :: String
-- more fields of various types
}
And I want to write a toString function for Rec :
recToString :: Rec -> String
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ map ($ r) fields
where fields = [show . recNumber, show . recName]
This works. fields has type [Rec -> String]. But I'm lazy and I would prefer writing
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ map (\f -> show $ f r) fields
where fields = [recNumber, recName]
But this doesn't work. Intuitively I would say fields has type Show a => [Rec -> a] and this should be ok. But Haskell doesn't allow it.
I'd like to understand what is going on here. Would I be right if I said that in the first case I get a list of functions such that the 2 instances of show are actually not the same function, but Haskell is able to determine which is which at compile time (which is why it's ok).
[show . recNumber, show . recName]
^-- This is show in instance Show Number
^-- This is show in instance Show String
Whereas in the second case, I only have one literal use of show in the code, and that would have to refer to multiple instances, not determined at compile time ?
map (\f -> show $ f r) fields
^-- Must be both instances at the same time
Can someone help me understand this ? And also are there workarounds or type system expansions that allow this ?
The type signature doesn't say what you think it says.
This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Consider the function
foo :: Show a => Rec -> a
People frequently seem to think this means that "foo can return any type that it wants to, so long as that type supports Show". It doesn't.
What it actually means is that foo must be able to return any possible type, because the caller gets to choose what the return type should be.
A few moments' thought will reveal that foo actually cannot exist. There is no way to turn a Rec into any possible type that can ever exist. It can't be done.
People often try to do something like Show a => [a] to mean "a list of mixed types but they all have Show". That obviously doesn't work; this type actually means that the list elements can be any type, but they still have to be all the same.
What you're trying to do seems reasonable enough. Unfortunately, I think your first example is about as close as you can get. You could try using tuples and lenses to get around this. You could try using Template Haskell instead. But unless you've got a hell of a lot of fields, it's probably not even worth the effort.
The type you actually want is not:
Show a => [Rec -> a]
Any type declaration with unbound type variables has an implicit forall. The above is equivalent to:
forall a. Show a => [Rec -> a]
This isn't what you wan't, because the a must be specialized to a single type for the entire list. (By the caller, to any one type they choose, as MathematicalOrchid points out.) Because you want the a of each element in the list to be able to be instantiated differently... what you are actually seeking is an existential type.
[exists a. Show a => Rec -> a]
You are wishing for a form of subtyping that Haskell does not support very well. The above syntax is not supported at all by GHC. You can use newtypes to sort of accomplish this:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
newtype Showy = forall a. Show a => Showy a
fields :: [Rec -> Showy]
fields = [Showy . recNumber, Showy . recName]
But unfortunatley, that is just as tedious as converting directly to strings, isn't it?
I don't believe that lens is capable of getting around this particular weakness of the Haskell type system:
recToString :: Rec -> String
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ toListOf (each . to fieldShown) fields
where fields = (recNumber, recName)
fieldShown f = show (f r)
-- error: Couldn't match type Int with [Char]
Suppose the fields do have the same type:
fields = [recNumber, recNumber]
Then it works, and Haskell figures out which show function instance to use at compile time; it doesn't have to look it up dynamically.
If you manually write out show each time, as in your original example, then Haskell can determine the correct instance for each call to show at compile time.
As for existentials... it depends on implementation, but presumably, the compiler cannot determine which instance to use statically, so a dynamic lookup will be used instead.
I'd like to suggest something very simple instead:
recToString r = intercalate "\t" [s recNumber, s recName]
where s f = show (f r)
All the elements of a list in Haskell must have the same type, so a list containing one Int and one String simply cannot exist. It is possible to get around this in GHC using existential types, but you probably shouldn't (this use of existentials is widely considered an anti-pattern, and it doesn't tend to perform terribly well). Another option would be to switch from a list to a tuple, and use some weird stuff from the lens package to map over both parts. It might even work.
How can I learn type of argument at function in Haskell ? In python, we have type ( ) function.
Ex:
in func;
if type ( a ) == Int
do <something>
But, I don't know how I can manage that wish in Haskell ?
You don't need this since Haskell is statically typed and all types are known at compile time. In case of polymorphic functions like length :: [a] -> Int (Calculate the length of a list of elements of type a), there is no way to find out about the type of the argument, since you specified with the type that any argument type fits.
You have http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/base/latest/doc/html/Data-Typeable.html
However compared to dynamic languages it is very very rare that you need to use such means, and as beginner you shouldn't even try to use it, as you're almost certainly doing it wrong, even if you are sure that you need it. You should embrace Haskell's battle cry "Follow the type!" and express your thoughts using the type system instead of trying to subvert it.
If you are trying to do type-directed dispatch, then you probably want a typeclass.
data Bar = ...
class Foo a where
foo :: a -> Bar
instance Foo Int where
foo = ...
func :: Foo a => a -> ...
func x ... = ... foo x ...
Notice how the type signature demands that x is an instance of the Foo class. That means we can call foo on x and the type-directed dispatch will be done for us, in a type-safe way. If you write code that tries to call foo on something that is not an instance of Foo, then it will be a type error.
The reason you are not allowed to perform your own type-directed dispatch in Haskell is because that would break some important guarantees given to you by the type system. We would have to say goodbye to our theorems for free.
A few basic questions, for converting SML code to Haskell.
1) I am used to having local embedded expressions in SML code, for example test expressions, prints, etc. which functions local tests and output when the code is loaded (evaluated).
In Haskell it seems that the only way to get results (evaluation) is to add code in a module, and then go to main in another module and add something to invoke and print results.
Is this right? in GHCi I can type expressions and see the results, but can this be automated?
Having to go to the top level main for each test evaluation seems inconvenient to me - maybe just need to shift my paradigm for laziness.
2) in SML I can do pattern matching and unification on a returned result, e.g.
val myTag(x) = somefunct(a,b,c);
and get the value of x after a match.
Can I do something similar in Haskell easily, without writing separate extraction functions?
3) How do I do a constructor with a tuple argument, i.e. uncurried.
in SML:
datatype Thing = Info of Int * Int;
but in Haskell, I tried;
data Thing = Info ( Int Int)
which fails. ("Int is applied to too many arguments in the type:A few Int Int")
The curried version works fine,
data Thing = Info Int Int
but I wanted un-curried.
Thanks.
This question is a bit unclear -- you're asking how to evaluate functions in Haskell?
If it is about inserting debug and tracing into pure code, this is typically only needed for debugging. To do this in Haskell, you can use Debug.Trace.trace, in the base package.
If you're concerned about calling functions, Haskell programs evaluate from main downwards, in dependency order. In GHCi you can, however, import modules and call any top-level function you wish.
You can return the original argument to a function, if you wish, by making it part of the function's result, e.g. with a tuple:
f x = (x, y)
where y = g a b c
Or do you mean to return either one value or another? Then using a tagged union (sum-type), such as Either:
f x = if x > 0 then Left x
else Right (g a b c)
How do I do a constructor with a tuple argument, i.e. uncurried in SML
Using the (,) constructor. E.g.
data T = T (Int, Int)
though more Haskell-like would be:
data T = T Int Bool
and those should probably be strict fields in practice:
data T = T !Int !Bool
Debug.Trace allows you to print debug messages inline. However, since these functions use unsafePerformIO, they might behave in unexpected ways compared to a call-by-value language like SML.
I think the # syntax is what you're looking for here:
data MyTag = MyTag Int Bool String
someFunct :: MyTag -> (MyTag, Int, Bool, String)
someFunct x#(MyTag a b c) = (x, a, b, c) -- x is bound to the entire argument
In Haskell, tuple types are separated by commas, e.g., (t1, t2), so what you want is:
data Thing = Info (Int, Int)
Reading the other answers, I think I can provide a few more example and one recommendation.
data ThreeConstructors = MyTag Int | YourTag (String,Double) | HerTag [Bool]
someFunct :: Char -> Char -> Char -> ThreeConstructors
MyTag x = someFunct 'a' 'b' 'c'
This is like the "let MyTag x = someFunct a b c" examples, but it is a the top level of the module.
As you have noticed, Haskell's top level can defined commands but there is no way to automatically run any code merely because your module has been imported by another module. This is entirely different from Scheme or SML. In Scheme the file is interpreted as being executed form-by-form, but Haskell's top level is only declarations. Thus Libraries cannot do normal things like run initialization code when loaded, they have to provide a "pleaseRunMe :: IO ()" kind of command to do any initialization.
As you point out this means running all the tests requires some boilerplate code to list them all. You can look under hackage's Testing group for libraries to help, such as test-framework-th.
For #2, yes, Haskell's pattern matching does the same thing. Both let and where do pattern matching. You can do
let MyTag x = someFunct a b c
in ...
or
...
where MyTag x = someFunct a b c