I've had to interface two libraries where metadata is represented as a type parameter in one and as a record field in the other. I wrote an adaptor using a GADT. Here's a distilled version:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
newtype TFId a = MkId a
data TFDup a = MkDup !a !a
data GADT tf where
ConstructorId :: GADT TFId
ConstructorDup :: GADT TFDup
main = do
f ConstructorId
f ConstructorDup
f :: GADT tf -> IO ()
f = _
This works. (May not be perfect; comments welcome, but that's not the question.)
It took me some time to get to this working state. My initial intuition was to use a type family for TFId, figuring: “GADT has kind (* -> *) -> *; in ConstructorDup TFDup has kind * -> *; so for ConstructorId I can use the following * -> * type family:”
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
type family TFId a where TFId a = a
The type constructor does have the same kind * -> *, but GHC apparently won't have it in the same place:
error: …
The type family ‘TFId’ should have 1 argument, but has been given none
In the definition of data constructor ‘ConstructorId’
In the data type declaration for ‘GADT’
Well, if it says so…
I'm no sure I understand why it would make such a difference. No using type family stems without applying them? What's going on? Any other (better) way to do?
Injectivity.
type family F :: * -> *
type instance F Int = Bool
type instance F Char = Bool
here F Int ~ F Char. However,
data G (a :: *) = ...
will never cause G Int ~ G Char. These are guaranteed to be distinct types.
In universal quantifications like
foo :: forall f a. f a -> a
f is allowed to be G (injective) but not allowed to be F (not injective).
This is to make inference work. foo (... :: G Int) can be inferred to have type Int. foo (... :: F Int) is equivalent to foo (... :: Bool) which may have type Int, or type Char -- it's an ambiguous type.
Also consider foo True. We can't expect GHC to choose f ~ F, a ~ Int (or Char) for us. This would involve looking at all type families and see if Bool can be produced by any on them -- essentially, we would need to invert all the type families. Even if this were feasible, it would generate a huge amount of possible solutions, so it would be ambiguous.
Related
I have newtype:
newtype Foo = Foo ([Int])
I would like to simply apply Int -> Int function over it like it is possible with fmap.
I thought it will be enough to derive or implement Functor instance, but it requires type of * -> * kind.
Is there some builtin way to make my type partially fmap-able?
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/mono-traversable-1.0.15.1/docs/Data-MonoTraversable.html#t:MonoFunctor
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
type instance Element Foo = Int
instance MonoFunctor Foo where
-- omap :: (Int -> Int) -> Foo -> Foo
omap = ...
Before getting carried away, you should keep in mind that you're trying to avoid (1) naming and (2) writing the monomorphic function:
mapFoo :: (Int -> Int) -> (Foo -> Foo)
mapFoo f (Foo ints) = Foo (f <$> ints)
If you really don't want to give this function a separate name and want GHC to write the function for you, I think the only sensible way is to re-define your type as a proper functor of kind * -> * with an automatically derived instance:
newtype FooF a = Foo [a] deriving (Functor)
and then define a type alias for the specialization to Int:
type Foo = FooF Int
This is not precisely equivalent to your original definition of Foo. In particular, the following expression in isolation:
Foo [1,2,3]
will have type Num a => FooF a instead of type Foo = FooF Int, so GHC may fail to infer types in all the places it used to. But, this Foo type alias will mostly behave like your original Foo newtype and will allow you to write:
fmap (*5) $ Foo [1,2,3]
and such.
On the other hand, if you want to keep your newtype the same, don't mind writing the function yourself, yet don't want to give that function a separate name, you can't use fmap (at least not without overriding the prelude definition, which kind of defeats the purpose). However, as per #leftroundabout's answer, you can use omap from the mono-traversable package. Because this requires you to define the function yourself in a MonoFunctor Foo instance (e.g., using the same definition as mapFoo above), there's no real point unless you're doing this for a bunch of non-functors besides Foo and want to use a single omap name for all of them or want to write functions that can handle any such MonoFunctor uniformly.
What/why are the differences between those three? Is a GADT (and regular data types) just a shorthand for a data family? Specifically what's the difference between:
data GADT a where
MkGADT :: Int -> GADT Int
data family FGADT a
data instance FGADT a where -- note not FGADT Int
MkFGADT :: Int -> FGADT Int
data family DF a
data instance DF Int where -- using GADT syntax, but not a GADT
MkDF :: Int -> DF Int
(Are those examples over-simplified, so I'm not seeing the subtleties of the differences?)
Data families are extensible, but GADTs are not. OTOH data family instances must not overlap. So I couldn't declare another instance/any other constructors for FGADT; just like I can't declare any other constructors for GADT. I can declare other instances for DF.
With pattern matching on those constructors, the rhs of the equation does 'know' that the payload is Int.
For class instances (I was surprised to find) I can write overlapping instances to consume GADTs:
instance C (GADT a) ...
instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} C (GADT Int) ...
and similarly for (FGADT a), (FGADT Int). But not for (DF a): it must be for (DF Int) -- that makes sense; there's no data instance DF a, and if there were it would overlap.
ADDIT: to clarify #kabuhr's answer (thank you)
contrary to what I think you're claiming in part of your question, for a plain data family, matching on a constructor does not perform any inference
These types are tricky, so I expect I'd need explicit signatures to work with them. In that case the plain data family is easiest
inferDF (MkDF x) = x -- works without a signature
The inferred type inferDF :: DF Int -> Int makes sense. Giving it a signature inferDF :: DF a -> a doesn't make sense: there is no declaration for a data instance DF a .... Similarly with foodouble :: Foo Char a -> a there is no data instance Foo Char a ....
GADTs are awkward, I already know. So neither of these work without an explicit signature
inferGADT (MkGADT x) = x
inferFGADT (MkFGADT x) = x
Mysterious "untouchable" message, as you say. What I meant in my "matching on those constructors" comment was: the compiler 'knows' on rhs of an equation that the payload is Int (for all three constructors), so you'd better get any signatures consistent with that.
Then I'm thinking data GADT a where ... is as if data instance GADT a where .... I can give a signature inferGADT :: GADT a -> a or inferGADT :: GADT Int -> Int (likewise for inferFGADT). That makes sense: there is a data instance GADT a ... or I can give a signature at a more specific type.
So in some ways data families are generalisations of GADTs. I also see as you say
So, in some ways, GADTs are generalizations of data families.
Hmm. (The reason behind the question is that GHC Haskell has got to the stage of feature bloat: there's too many similar-but-different extensions. I was trying to prune it down to a smaller number of underlying abstractions. Then #HTNW's approach of explaining in terms of yet further extensions is opposite to what would help a learner. IMO existentials in data types should be chucked out: use GADTs instead. PatternSynonyms should be explained in terms of data types and mapping functions between them, not the other way round. Oh, and there's some DataKinds stuff, which I skipped over on first reading.)
As a start, you should think of a data family as a collection of independent ADTs that happen to be indexed by a type, while a GADT is a single data type with an inferrable type parameter where constraints on that parameter (typically, equality constraints like a ~ Int) can be brought into scope by pattern matching.
This means that the biggest difference is that, contrary to what I think you're claiming in part of your question, for a plain data family, matching on a constructor does not perform any inference on the type parameter. In particular, this typechecks:
inferGADT :: GADT a -> a
inferGADT (MkGADT n) = n
but this does not:
inferDF :: DF a -> a
inferDF (MkDF n) = n
and without type signatures, the first would fail to type check (with a mysterious "untouchable" message) while the second would be inferred as DF Int -> Int.
The situation becomes quite a bit more confusing for something like your FGADT type that combines data families with GADTs, and I confess I haven't really thought about how this works in detail. But, as an interesting example, consider:
data family Foo a b
data instance Foo Int a where
Bar :: Double -> Foo Int Double
Baz :: String -> Foo Int String
data instance Foo Char Double where
Quux :: Double -> Foo Char Double
data instance Foo Char String where
Zlorf :: String -> Foo Char String
In this case, Foo Int a is a GADT with an inferrable a parameter:
fooint :: Foo Int a -> a
fooint (Bar x) = x + 1.0
fooint (Baz x) = x ++ "ish"
but Foo Char a is just a collection of separate ADTs, so this won't typecheck:
foodouble :: Foo Char a -> a
foodouble (Quux x) = x
for the same reason inferDF won't typecheck above.
Now, getting back to your plain DF and GADT types, you can largely emulate DFs just using GADTs. For example, if you have a DF:
data family MyDF a
data instance MyDF Int where
IntLit :: Int -> MyDF Int
IntAdd :: MyDF Int -> MyDF Int -> MyDF Int
data instance MyDF Bool where
Positive :: MyDF Int -> MyDF Bool
you can write it as a GADT just by writing separate blocks of constructors:
data MyGADT a where
-- MyGADT Int
IntLit' :: Int -> MyGADT Int
IntAdd' :: MyGADT Int -> MyGADT Int -> MyGADT Int
-- MyGADT Bool
Positive' :: MyGADT Int -> MyGADT Bool
So, in some ways, GADTs are generalizations of data families. However, a major use case for data families is defining associated data types for classes:
class MyClass a where
data family MyRep a
instance MyClass Int where
data instance MyRep Int = ...
instance MyClass String where
data instance MyRep String = ...
where the "open" nature of data families is needed (and where the pattern-based inference methods of GADTs aren't helpful).
I think the difference becomes clear if we use PatternSynonyms-style type signatures for data constructors. Lets start with Haskell 98
data D a = D a a
You get a pattern type:
pattern D :: forall a. a -> a -> D a
it can be read in two directions. D, in "forward" or expression contexts, says, "forall a, you can give me 2 as and I'll give you a D a". "Backwards", as a pattern, it says, "forall a, you can give me a D a and I'll give you 2 as".
Now, the things you write in a GADT definition are not pattern types. What are they? Lies. Lies lies lies. Give them attention only insofar as the alternative is writing them out manually with ExistentialQuantification. Let's use this one
data GD a where
GD :: Int -> GD Int
You get
-- vv ignore
pattern GD :: forall a. () => (a ~ Int) => Int -> GD a
This says: forall a, you can give me a GD a, and I can give you a proof that a ~ Int, plus an Int.
Important observation: The return/match type of a GADT constructor is always the "data type head". I defined data GD a where ...; I got GD :: forall a. ... GD a. This is also true for Haskell 98 constructors, and also data family constructors, though it's a bit more subtle.
If I have a GD a, and I don't know what a is, I can pass into GD anyway, even though I wrote GD :: Int -> GD Int, which seems to say I can only match it with GD Ints. This is why I say GADT constructors lie. The pattern type never lies. It clearly states that, forall a, I can match a GD a with the GD constructor and get evidence for a ~ Int and a value of Int.
Ok, data familys. Lets not mix them with GADTs yet.
data Nat = Z | S Nat
data Vect (n :: Nat) (a :: Type) :: Type where
VNil :: Vect Z a
VCons :: a -> Vect n a -> Vect (S n) a -- try finding the pattern types for these btw
data family Rect (ns :: [Nat]) (a :: Type) :: Type
newtype instance Rect '[] a = RectNil a
newtype instance Rect (n : ns) a = RectCons (Vect n (Rect ns a))
There are actually two data type heads now. As #K.A.Buhr says, the different data instances act like different data types that just happen to share a name. The pattern types are
pattern RectNil :: forall a. a -> Rect '[] a
pattern RectCons :: forall n ns a. Vect n (Rect ns a) -> Rect (n : ns) a
If I have a Rect ns a, and I don't know what ns is, I cannot match on it. RectNil only takes Rect '[] as, RectCons only takes Rect (n : ns) as. You might ask: "why would I want a reduction in power?" #KABuhr has given one: GADTs are closed (and for good reason; stay tuned), families are open. This doesn't hold in Rect's case, as these instances already fill up the entire [Nat] * Type space. The reason is actually newtype.
Here's a GADT RectG:
data RectG :: [Nat] -> Type -> Type where
RectGN :: a -> RectG '[] a
RectGC :: Vect n (RectG ns a) -> RectG (n : ns) a
I get
-- it's fine if you don't get these
pattern RectGN :: forall ns a. () => (ns ~ '[]) => a -> RectG ns a
pattern RectGC :: forall ns' a. forall n ns. (ns' ~ (n : ns)) =>
Vect n (RectG ns a) -> RectG ns' a
-- just note that they both have the same matched type
-- which means there needs to be a runtime distinguishment
If I have a RectG ns a and don't know what ns is, I can still match on it just fine. The compiler has to preserve this information with a data constructor. So, if I had a RectG [1000, 1000] Int, I would incur an overhead of one million RectGN constructors that all "preserve" the same "information". Rect [1000, 1000] Int is fine, though, as I do not have the ability to match and tell whether a Rect is RectNil or RectCons. This allows the constructor to be newtype, as it holds no information. I would instead use a different GADT, somewhat like
data SingListNat :: [Nat] -> Type where
SLNN :: SingListNat '[]
SLNCZ :: SingListNat ns -> SingListNat (Z : ns)
SLNCS :: SingListNat (n : ns) -> SingListNat (S n : ns)
that stores the dimensions of a Rect in O(sum ns) space instead of O(product ns) space (I think those are right). This is also why GADTs are closed and families are open. A GADT is just like a normal data type except it has equality evidence and existentials. It doesn't make sense to add constructors to a GADT any more than it makes sense to add constructors to a Haskell 98 type, because any code that doesn't know about one of the constructors is in for a very bad time. It's fine for families though, because, as you noticed, once you define a branch of a family, you cannot add more constructors in that branch. Once you know what branch you're in, you know the constructors, and no one can break that. You're not allowed to use any constructors if you don't know which branch to use.
Your examples don't really mix GADTs and data families. Pattern types are nifty in that they normalize away superficial differences in data definitions, so let's take a look.
data family FGADT a
data instance FGADT a where
MkFGADT :: Int -> FGADT Int
Gives you
pattern MkFGADT :: forall a. () => (a ~ Int) => Int -> FGADT a
-- no different from a GADT; data family does nothing
But
data family DF a
data instance DF Int where
MkDF :: Int -> DF Int
gives
pattern MkDF :: Int -> DF Int
-- GADT syntax did nothing
Here's a proper mixing
data family Map k :: Type -> Type
data instance Map Word8 :: Type -> Type where
MW8BitSet :: BitSet8 -> Map Word8 Bool
MW8General :: GeneralMap Word8 a -> Map Word8 a
Which gives patterns
pattern MW8BitSet :: forall a. () => (a ~ Bool) => BitSet8 -> Map Word8 a
pattern MW8General :: forall a. GeneralMap Word8 a -> Map Word8 a
If I have a Map k v and I don't know what k is, I can't match it against MW8General or MW8BitSet, because those only want Map Word8s. This is the data family's influence. If I have a Map Word8 v and I don't know what v is, matching on the constructors can reveal to me whether it's known to be Bool or is something else.
Existentially quantified data constructors like
data Foo = forall a. MkFoo a (a -> Bool)
| Nil
can be easily translated to GADTs:
data Foo where
MkFoo :: a -> (a -> Bool) -> Foo
Nil :: Foo
Are there any differences between them: code which compiles with one but not another, or gives different results?
They are nearly equivalent, albeit not completely so, depending on which extensions you turn on.
First of all, note that you don't need to enable the GADTs extension to use the data .. where syntax for existential types. It suffices to enable the following lesser extensions.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTSyntax #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
With these extensions, you can compile
data U where
U :: a -> (a -> String) -> U
foo :: U -> String
foo (U x f) = f x
g x = let h y = const y x
in (h True, h 'a')
The above code also compiles if we replace the extensions and the type definition with
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
data U = forall a . U a (a -> String)
The above code, however, does not compile with the GADTs extension turned on! This is because GADTs also turns on the MonoLocalBinds extension, which prevents the above definition of g to compile. This is because the latter extension prevents h to receive a polymorphic type.
From the documentation:
Notice that GADT-style syntax generalises existential types (Existentially quantified data constructors). For example, these two declarations are equivalent:
data Foo = forall a. MkFoo a (a -> Bool)
data Foo' where { MKFoo :: a -> (a->Bool) -> Foo' }
(emphasis on the word equivalent)
The latter isn't actually a GADT - it's an existentially quantified data type declared with GADT syntax. As such, it is identical to the former.
The reason it's not a GADT is that there is no type variable that gets refined based on the choice of constructor. That's the key new functionality added by GADTs. If you have a GADT like this:
data Foo a where
StringFoo :: String -> Foo String
IntFoo :: Int -> Foo Int
Then pattern-matching on each constructor reveals additional information that can be used inside the matching clause. For instance:
deconstructFoo :: Foo a -> a
deconstructFoo (StringFoo s) = "Hello! " ++ s ++ " is a String!"
deconstructFoo (IntFoo i) = i * 3 + 1
Notice that something very interesting is happening there, from the point of view of the type system. deconstructFoo promises it will work for any choice of a, as long as it's passed a value of type Foo a. But then the first equation returns a String, and the second equation returns an Int.
This is what you cannot do with a regular data type, and the new thing GADTs provide. In the first equation, the pattern match adds the constraint (a ~ String) to its context. In the second equation, the pattern match adds (a ~ Int).
If you haven't created a type where pattern-matching can cause type refinement, you don't have a GADT. You just have a type declared with GADT syntax. Which is fine - in a lot of ways, it's a better syntax than the basic data type syntax. It's just more verbose for the easiest cases.
A type constructor produces a type given a type. For example, the Maybe constructor
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
could be a given a concrete type, like Char, and give a concrete type, like Maybe Char. In terms of kinds, one has
GHCI> :k Maybe
Maybe :: * -> *
My question: Is it possible to define a type constructor that yields a concrete type given a Char, say? Put another way, is it possible to mix kinds and types in the type signature of a type constructor? Something like
GHCI> :k my_type
my_type :: Char -> * -> *
Can a Haskell type constructor have non-type parameters?
Let's unpack what you mean by type parameter. The word type has (at least) two potential meanings: do you mean type in the narrow sense of things of kind *, or in the broader sense of things at the type level? We can't (yet) use values in types, but modern GHC features a very rich kind language, allowing us to use a wide range of things other than concrete types as type parameters.
Higher-Kinded Types
Type constructors in Haskell have always admitted non-* parameters. For example, the encoding of the fixed point of a functor works in plain old Haskell 98:
newtype Fix f = Fix { unFix :: f (Fix f) }
ghci> :k Fix
Fix :: (* -> *) -> *
Fix is parameterised by a functor of kind * -> *, not a type of kind *.
Beyond * and ->
The DataKinds extension enriches GHC's kind system with user-declared kinds, so kinds may be built of pieces other than * and ->. It works by promoting all data declarations to the kind level. That is to say, a data declaration like
data Nat = Z | S Nat -- natural numbers
introduces a kind Nat and type constructors Z :: Nat and S :: Nat -> Nat, as well as the usual type and value constructors. This allows you to write datatypes parameterised by type-level data, such as the customary vector type, which is a linked list indexed by its length.
data Vec n a where
Nil :: Vec Z a
(:>) :: a -> Vec n a -> Vec (S n) a
ghci> :k Vec
Vec :: Nat -> * -> *
There's a related extension called ConstraintKinds, which frees constraints like Ord a from the yoke of the "fat arrow" =>, allowing them to roam across the landscape of the type system as nature intended. Kmett has used this power to build a category of constraints, with the newtype (:-) :: Constraint -> Constraint -> * denoting "entailment": a value of type c :- d is a proof that if c holds then d also holds. For example, we can prove that Ord a implies Eq [a] for all a:
ordToEqList :: Ord a :- Eq [a]
ordToEqList = Sub Dict
Life after forall
However, Haskell currently maintains a strict separation between the type level and the value level. Things at the type level are always erased before the program runs, (almost) always inferrable, invisible in expressions, and (dependently) quantified by forall. If your application requires something more flexible, such as dependent quantification over runtime data, then you have to manually simulate it using a singleton encoding.
For example, the specification of split says it chops a vector at a certain length according to its (runtime!) argument. The type of the output vector depends on the value of split's argument. We'd like to write this...
split :: (n :: Nat) -> Vec (n :+: m) a -> (Vec n a, Vec m a)
... where I'm using the type function (:+:) :: Nat -> Nat -> Nat, which stands for addition of type-level naturals, to ensure that the input vector is at least as long as n...
type family n :+: m where
Z :+: m = m
S n :+: m = S (n :+: m)
... but Haskell won't allow that declaration of split! There aren't any values of type Z or S n; only types of kind * contain values. We can't access n at runtime directly, but we can use a GADT which we can pattern-match on to learn what the type-level n is:
data Natty n where
Zy :: Natty Z
Sy :: Natty n -> Natty (S n)
ghci> :k Natty
Natty :: Nat -> *
Natty is called a singleton, because for a given (well-defined) n there is only one (well-defined) value of type Natty n. We can use Natty n as a run-time stand-in for n.
split :: Natty n -> Vec (n :+: m) a -> (Vec n a, Vec m a)
split Zy xs = (Nil, xs)
split (Sy n) (x :> xs) =
let (ys, zs) = split n xs
in (x :> ys, zs)
Anyway, the point is that values - runtime data - can't appear in types. It's pretty tedious to duplicate the definition of Nat in singleton form (and things get worse if you want the compiler to infer such values); dependently-typed languages like Agda, Idris, or a future Haskell escape the tyranny of strictly separating types from values and give us a range of expressive quantifiers. You're able to use an honest-to-goodness Nat as split's runtime argument and mention its value dependently in the return type.
#pigworker has written extensively about the unsuitability of Haskell's strict separation between types and values for modern dependently-typed programming. See, for example, the Hasochism paper, or his talk on the unexamined assumptions that have been drummed into us by four decades of Hindley-Milner-style programming.
Dependent Kinds
Finally, for what it's worth, with TypeInType modern GHC unifies types and kinds, allowing us to talk about kind variables using the same tools that we use to talk about type variables. In a previous post about session types I made use of TypeInType to define a kind for tagged type-level sequences of types:
infixr 5 :!, :?
data Session = Type :! Session -- Type is a synonym for *
| Type :? Session
| E
I'd recommend #Benjamin Hodgson's answer and the references he gives to see how to make this sort of thing useful. But, to answer your question more directly, using several extensions (DataKinds, KindSignatures, and GADTs), you can define types that are parameterized on (certain) concrete types.
For example, here's one parameterized on the concrete Bool datatype:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds, KindSignatures, GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
module FlaggedType where
-- The single quotes below are optional. They serve to notify
-- GHC that we are using the type-level constructors lifted from
-- data constructors rather than types of the same name (and are
-- only necessary where there's some kind of ambiguity otherwise).
data Flagged :: Bool -> * -> * where
Truish :: a -> Flagged 'True a
Falsish :: a -> Flagged 'False a
-- separate instances, just as if they were different types
-- (which they are)
instance (Show a) => Show (Flagged 'False a) where
show (Falsish x) = show x
instance (Show a) => Show (Flagged 'True a) where
show (Truish x) = show x ++ "*"
-- these lists have types as indicated
x = [Truish 1, Truish 2, Truish 3] -- :: Flagged 'True Integer
y = [Falsish "a", Falsish "b", Falsish "c"] -- :: Flagged 'False String
-- this won't typecheck: it's just like [1,2,"abc"]
z = [Truish 1, Truish 2, Falsish 3] -- won't typecheck
Note that this isn't much different from defining two completely separate types:
data FlaggedTrue a = Truish a
data FlaggedFalse a = Falsish a
In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any advantage Flagged has over defining two separate types, except if you have a bar bet with someone that you can write useful Haskell code without type classes. For example, you can write:
getInt :: Flagged a Int -> Int
getInt (Truish z) = z -- same polymorphic function...
getInt (Falsish z) = z -- ...defined on two separate types
Maybe someone else can think of some other advantages.
Anyway, I believe that parameterizing types with concrete values really only becomes useful when the concrete type is sufficient "rich" that you can use it to leverage the type checker, as in Benjamin's examples.
As #user2407038 noted, most interesting primitive types, like Ints, Chars, Strings and so on can't be used this way. Interestingly enough, though, you can use literal positive integers and strings as type parameters, but they are treated as Nats and Symbols (as defined in GHC.TypeLits) respectively.
So something like this is possible:
import GHC.TypeLits
data Tagged :: Symbol -> Nat -> * -> * where
One :: a -> Tagged "one" 1 a
Two :: a -> Tagged "two" 2 a
Three :: a -> Tagged "three" 3 a
Look at using Generalized Algebraic Data Types (GADTS), which enable you to define concrete outputs based on input type, e.g.
data CustomMaybe a where
MaybeChar :: Maybe a -> CustomMaybe Char
MaybeString :: Maybe a > CustomMaybe String
MaybeBool :: Maybe a -> CustomMaybe Bool
exampleFunction :: CustomMaybe a -> a
exampleFunction (MaybeChar maybe) = 'e'
exampleFunction (MaybeString maybe) = True //Compile error
main = do
print $ exampleFunction (MaybeChar $ Just 10)
To a similar effect, RankNTypes can allow the implementation of similar behaviour:
exampleFunctionOne :: a -> a
exampleFunctionOne el = el
type PolyType = forall a. a -> a
exampleFuntionTwo :: PolyType -> Int
exampleFunctionTwo func = func 20
exampleFunctionTwo func = func "Hello" --Compiler error, PolyType being forced to return 'Int'
main = do
print $ exampleFunctionTwo exampleFunctionOne
The PolyType definition allows you to insert the polymorphic function within exampleFunctionTwo and force its output to be 'Int'.
No. Haskell doesn't have dependent types (yet). See https://typesandkinds.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/dependent-types-in-haskell-progress-report/ for some discussion of when it may.
In the meantime, you can get behavior like this in Agda, Idris, and Cayenne.
I have played around with TypeFamilies, FunctionalDependencies, and MultiParamTypeClasses. And it seems to me as though TypeFamilies doesn't add any concrete functionality over the other two. (But not vice versa). But I know type families are pretty well liked so I feel like I am missing something:
"open" relation between types, such as a conversion function, which does not seem possible with TypeFamilies. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses:
class Convert a b where
convert :: a -> b
instance Convert Foo Bar where
convert = foo2Bar
instance Convert Foo Baz where
convert = foo2Baz
instance Convert Bar Baz where
convert = bar2Baz
Surjective relation between types, such as a sort of type safe pseudo-duck typing mechanism, that would normally be done with a standard type family. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class HasLength a b | a -> b where
getLength :: a -> b
instance HasLength [a] Int where
getLength = length
instance HasLength (Set a) Int where
getLength = S.size
instance HasLength Event DateDiff where
getLength = dateDiff (start event) (end event)
Bijective relation between types, such as for an unboxed container, which could be done through TypeFamilies with a data family, although then you have to declare a new data type for every contained type, such as with a newtype. Either that or with an injective type family, which I think is not available prior to GHC 8. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class Unboxed a b | a -> b, b -> a where
toList :: a -> [b]
fromList :: [b] -> a
instance Unboxed FooVector Foo where
toList = fooVector2List
fromList = list2FooVector
instance Unboxed BarVector Bar where
toList = barVector2List
fromList = list2BarVector
And lastly a surjective relations between two types and a third type, such as python2 or java style division function, which can be done with TypeFamilies by also using MultiParamTypeClasses. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class Divide a b c | a b -> c where
divide :: a -> b -> c
instance Divide Int Int Int where
divide = div
instance Divide Int Double Double where
divide = (/) . fromIntegral
instance Divide Double Int Double where
divide = (. fromIntegral) . (/)
instance Divide Double Double Double where
divide = (/)
One other thing I should also add is that it seems like FunctionalDependencies and MultiParamTypeClasses are also quite a bit more concise (for the examples above anyway) as you only have to write the type once, and you don't have to come up with a dummy type name which you then have to type for every instance like you do with TypeFamilies:
instance FooBar LongTypeName LongerTypeName where
FooBarResult LongTypeName LongerTypeName = LongestTypeName
fooBar = someFunction
vs:
instance FooBar LongTypeName LongerTypeName LongestTypeName where
fooBar = someFunction
So unless I am convinced otherwise it really seems like I should just not bother with TypeFamilies and use solely FunctionalDependencies and MultiParamTypeClasses. Because as far as I can tell it will make my code more concise, more consistent (one less extension to care about), and will also give me more flexibility such as with open type relationships or bijective relations (potentially the latter is solver by GHC 8).
Here's an example of where TypeFamilies really shines compared to MultiParamClasses with FunctionalDependencies. In fact, I challenge you to come up with an equivalent MultiParamClasses solution, even one that uses FlexibleInstances, OverlappingInstance, etc.
Consider the problem of type level substitution (I ran across a specific variant of this in Quipper in QData.hs). Essentially what you want to do is recursively substitute one type for another. For example, I want to be able to
substitute Int for Bool in Either [Int] String and get Either [Bool] String,
substitute [Int] for Bool in Either [Int] String and get Either Bool String,
substitute [Int] for [Bool] in Either [Int] String and get Either [Bool] String.
All in all, I want the usual notion of type level substitution. With a closed type family, I can do this for any types (albeit I need an extra line for each higher-kinded type constructor - I stopped at * -> * -> * -> * -> *).
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
-- Subsitute type `x` for type `y` in type `a`
type family Substitute x y a where
Substitute x y x = y
Substitute x y (k a b c d) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b) (Substitute x y c) (Substitute x y d)
Substitute x y (k a b c) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b) (Substitute x y c)
Substitute x y (k a b) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b)
Substitute x y (k a) = k (Substitute x y a)
Substitute x y a = a
And trying at ghci I get the desired output:
> :t undefined :: Substitute Int Bool (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either [Bool] [Char]
> :t undefined :: Substitute [Int] Bool (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either Bool [Char]
> :t undefined :: Substitute [Int] [Bool] (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either [Bool] [Char]
With that said, maybe you should be asking yourself why am I using MultiParamClasses and not TypeFamilies. Of the examples you gave above, all except Convert translate to type families (albeit you will need an extra line per instance for the type declaration).
Then again, for Convert, I am not convinced it is a good idea to define such a thing. The natural extension to Convert would be instances such as
instance (Convert a b, Convert b c) => Convert a c where
convert = convert . convert
instance Convert a a where
convert = id
which are as unresolvable for GHC as they are elegant to write...
To be clear, I am not saying there are no uses of MultiParamClasses, just that when possible you should be using TypeFamilies - they let you think about type-level functions instead of just relations.
This old HaskellWiki page does an OK job of comparing the two.
EDIT
Some more contrasting and history I stumbled upon from augustss blog
Type families grew out of the need to have type classes with
associated types. The latter is not strictly necessary since it can be
emulated with multi-parameter type classes, but it gives a much nicer
notation in many cases. The same is true for type families; they can
also be emulated by multi-parameter type classes. But MPTC gives a
very logic programming style of doing type computation; whereas type
families (which are just type functions that can pattern match on the
arguments) is like functional programming.
Using closed type families
adds some extra strength that cannot be achieved by type classes. To
get the same power from type classes we would need to add closed type
classes. Which would be quite useful; this is what instance chains
gives you.
Functional dependencies only affect the process of constraint solving, while type families introduced the notion of non-syntactic type equality, represented in GHC's intermediate form by coercions. This means type families interact better with GADTs. See this question for the canonical example of how functional dependencies fail here.