Is there a clean way to avoid the following boilerplate:
Given a Record data type definition....
data Value = A{ name::String } | B{ name::String } | C{}
write a function that safely returns name
getName :: Value -> Maybe String
getName A{ name=x } = Just x
getName B{ name=x } = Just x
getName C{} = Nothing
I know you can do this with Template Haskell, I am looking for a cleaner soln than that, perhaps a GHC extension or something else I've overlooked.
lens's Template Haskell helpers do the right thing when they encounter partial record fields.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Lens
data T = A { _name :: String }
| B { _name :: String }
| C
makeLenses ''T
This'll generate a Traversal' called name that selects the String inside the A and B constructors and does nothing in the C case.
ghci> :i name
name :: Traversal' T String -- Defined at test.hs:11:1
So we can use the ^? operator (which is a flipped synonym for preview) from Control.Lens.Fold to pull out Maybe the name.
getName :: T -> Maybe String
getName = (^? name)
You can also make Prism's for the constructors of your datatype, and choose the first one of those which matches using <|>. This version is useful when the fields of your constructors have different names, but you do have to remember to update your extractor function when you add constructors.
makePrisms ''T
getName' :: T -> Maybe String
getName' t = t^?_A <|> t^?_B
lens is pretty useful!
Why don't you use a GADT? I do not know if you are interested in using only records. But, I fell that GADTs provide a clean solution to your problem, since you can restrict what constructors are valid by refining types.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
module Teste where
data Value a where
A :: String -> Value String
B :: String -> Value String
C :: Value ()
name :: Value String -> String
name (A s) = s
name (B s) = s
Notice that both A and B produce Value String values while C produces Value (). When you define function
name :: Value String -> String
it specifically says that you can only pass a value that has a string in it. So, you can only pattern match on A or B values. This is useful to avoid the need of Maybe in code.
Related
Consider the following:
{-# LANGUAGE DuplicateRecordFields #-}
data A = A { name :: String }
data B = B { name :: String }
main = print $ name (A "Alice")
When compiled, I get the following message (on GHC 8.0.2)
duplicatedrecords.hs:7:16: error:
Ambiguous occurrence ‘name’
It could refer to either the field ‘name’,
defined at duplicatedrecords.hs:5:14
or the field ‘name’, defined at duplicatedrecords.hs:3:14
But if I modify the main line as follows:
main = print $ name ((A "Alice") :: A)
Compilation proceeds successfully.
Why is this? The type signature :: A seems redundant to me, as surely the A constructor makes it clear to the compiler that (A "Alice") is of type A. But for some reason it makes a difference. Why is this and is there a way I can get this to compile without littering extra type signatures everywhere?
Note:
It's worth noting that the following compiles fine:
data A = A { a_name :: String }
data B = B { b_name :: String }
class Name t where
name :: t -> String
instance Name A where name = a_name
instance Name B where name = b_name
main = print $ name (A "Alice")
We can even go further as follows, allowing different result types:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
data A = A { a_name :: String }
data B = B { b_name :: Int }
class Name t where
type family T t
name :: t -> T t
instance Name A where
type T A = String
name = a_name
instance Name B where
type T B = Int
name = b_name
main = print $ name (A "Alice")
It seems like GHC just has to mechanically add a class for each unique record name and an instance for each record in each data type. This will mean however that name x == name y not implying that the types of x and y are the same but I'd expect that when using this extension anyway.
Just wondering if there's anything tricky I'm missing here regarding the implementation or that it just needs someone to do it?
-XDuplicateRecordFields currently doesn't infer types from arguments.
See GHC user guide section about this extension.
However, we do not infer the type of the argument to determine the datatype, or have any way of deferring the choice to the constraint solver. Thus the following is ambiguous:
But things are improving. So we might expect and finally get desired behavior:
https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution
I was wondering if given a constructor, such as:
data UserType = User
{ username :: String
, password :: String
} -- deriving whatever necessary
What the easiest way is for me to get something on the lines of [("username", String), ("password", String)], short of just manually writing it. Now for this specific example it is fine to just write it but for a complex database model with lots of different fields it would be pretty annoying.
So far I have looked through Typeable and Data but so far the closest thing I have found is:
user = User "admin" "pass"
constrFields (toConstr user)
But that doesn't tell me the types, it just returns ["username", "password"] and it also requires that I create an instance of User.
I just knocked out a function using Data.Typeable that lets you turn a constructor into a list of the TypeReps of its arguments. In conjunction with the constrFields you found you can zip them together to get your desired result:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
module Foo where
import Data.Typeable
import Data.Typeable.Internal(funTc)
getConsArguments c = go (typeOf c)
where go x = let (con, rest) = splitTyConApp x
in if con == funTc
then case rest of (c:cs:[]) -> c : go cs
_ -> error "arrows always take two arguments"
else []
given data Foo = Foo {a :: String, b :: Int} deriving Typeable, we get
*> getConsArguments Foo
[[Char],Int]
As one would hope.
On how to get the field names without using a populated data type value itself, here is a solution:
constrFields . head . dataTypeConstrs $ dataTypeOf (undefined :: Foo)
I'd like to write a program that prints out some metadata of a Haskell type. Although I know this isn't valid code, the idea is something like:
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int }
metadata :: Type -> String
metadata t = ???
metadata Person -- returns "Person (name,age)"
The important restriction being I don't have an instance of Person, just the type.
I've started looking into Generics & Typeable/Data, but without an instance I'm not sure they'll do what I need. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Reflection in Haskell works using the Typeable class, which is defined in Data.Typeable and includes the typeOf* method to get a run-time representation of a value's type.
ghci> :m +Data.Typeable
ghci> :t typeOf 'a'
typeOf 'a' :: TypeRep
ghci> typeOf 'a' -- We could use any value of type Char and get the same result
Char -- the `Show` instance of `TypeRep` just returns the name of the type
If you want Typeable to work for your own types, you can have the compiler generate an instance for you with the DeriveDataTypeable extension.
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
import Data.Typeable
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int } deriving Typeable
You can also write your own instance, but really, no one has the time for that. Apparently you can't - see the comments
You can now use typeOf to grab a run-time representation of your type. We can query information about the type constructor (abbreviated to TyCon) and its type arguments:
-- (undefined :: Person) stands for "some value of type Person".
-- If you have a real Person you can use that too.
-- typeOf does not use the value, only the type
-- (which is known at compile-time; typeOf is dispatched using the normal instance selection rules)
ghci> typeOf (undefined :: Person)
Person
ghci> tyConName $ typeRepTyCon $ typeOf (undefined :: Person)
"Person"
ghci> tyConModule $ typeRepTyCon $ typeOf (undefined :: Person)
"Main"
Data.Typeable also provides a type-safe cast operation which allows you to branch on a value's runtime type, somewhat like C#'s as operator.
f :: Typeable a => a -> String
f x = case (cast x :: Maybe Int) of
Just i -> "I can treat i as an int in this branch " ++ show (i * i)
Nothing -> case (cast x :: Maybe Bool) of
Just b -> "I can treat b as a bool in this branch " ++ if b then "yes" else "no"
Nothing -> "x was of some type other than Int or Bool"
ghci> f True
"I can treat b as a bool in this branch yes"
ghci> f (3 :: Int)
"I can treat i as an int in this branch 9"
Incidentally, a nicer way to write f is to use a GADT enumerating the set of types you expect your function to be called with. This allows us to lose the Maybe (f can never fail!), does a better job of documenting our assumptions, and gives compile-time feedback when we need to change the set of admissible argument types for f. (You can write a class to make Admissible implicit if you like.)
data Admissible a where
AdInt :: Admissible Int
AdBool :: Admissible Bool
f :: Admissible a -> a -> String
f AdInt i = "I can treat i as an int in this branch " ++ show (i * i)
f AdBool b = "I can treat b as a bool in this branch " ++ if b then "yes" else "no"
In reality I probably wouldn't do either of these - I'd just stick f in a class and define instances for Int and Bool.
If you want run-time information about the right-hand side of a type definition, you need to use the entertainingly-named Data.Data, which defines a subclass of Typeable called Data.** GHC can derive Data for you too, with the same extension:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
import Data.Typeable
import Data.Data
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int } deriving (Typeable, Data)
Now we can grab a run-time representation of the values of a type, not just the type itself:
ghci> dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
DataType {tycon = "Main.Person", datarep = AlgRep [Person]}
ghci> dataTypeConstrs $ dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
[Person] -- Person only defines one constructor, called Person
ghci> constrFields $ head $ dataTypeConstrs $ dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
["name","age"]
Data.Data is the API for generic programming; if you ever hear people talking about "Scrap Your Boilerplate", this (along with Data.Generics, which builds on Data.Data) is what they mean. For example, you can write a function which converts record types to JSON using reflection on the type's fields.
toJSON :: Data a => a -> String
-- Implementation omitted because it is boring.
-- But you only have to write the boring code once,
-- and it'll be able to serialise any instance of `Data`.
-- It's a good exercise to try to write this function yourself!
* In recent versions of GHC, this API has changed somewhat. Consult the docs.
** Yes, the fully-qualified name of that class is Data.Data.Data.
I love Lens library and I love how it works, but sometimes it introduces so many problems, that I regret I ever started using it. Lets look at this simple example:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
main = do
let b = B "x"
print $ view y b
it outputs:
""
And now imagine - we've got a datatype and we refactor it - by changing some names. Instead of getting error (in runtime, like with normal accessors) that this name does not longer apply to particular data constructor, lenses use mempty from Monoid to create default object, so we get strange results instead of error. Debugging something like this is almost impossible.
Is there any way to fix this behaviour? I know there are some special operators to get the behaviour I want, but all "normal" looking functions from lenses are just horrible. Should I just override them with my custom module or is there any nicer method?
As a sidenote: I want to be able to read and set the arguments using lens syntax, but just remove the behaviour of automatic result creating when field is missing.
It sounds like you just want to recover the exception behavior. I vaguely recall that this is how view once worked. If so, I expect a reasonable choice was made with the change.
Normally I end up working with (^?) in the cases you are talking about:
> b ^? y
Nothing
If you want the exception behavior you can use ^?!
> b ^?! y
"*** Exception: (^?!): empty Fold
I prefer to use ^? to avoid partial functions and exceptions, similar to how it is commonly advised to stay away from head, last, !! and other partial functions.
Yes, I too have found it a bit odd that view works for Traversals by concatenating the targets. I think this is because of the instance Monoid m => Applicative (Const m). You can write your own view equivalent that doesn't have this behaviour by writing your own Const equivalent that doesn't have this instance.
Perhaps one workaround would be to provide a type signature for y, so know know exactly what it is. If you had this then your "pathological" use of view wouldn't compile.
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y' :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
y :: Lens' Data String
y = y'
You can do this by defining your own view1 operator. It doesn't exist in the lens package, but it's easy to define locally.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
newtype Get a b = Get { unGet :: a }
instance Functor (Get a) where
fmap _ (Get x) = Get x
view1 :: LensLike' (Get a) s a -> s -> a
view1 l = unGet . l Get
works :: Data -> String
works = view1 x
-- fails :: Data -> String
-- fails = view1 y
-- Bug.hs:23:15:
-- No instance for (Control.Applicative.Applicative (Get String))
-- arising from a use of ‘y’
I have the following code, and I would like this to fail type checking:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import Control.Lens
data GADT e a where
One :: Greet e => String -> GADT e String
Two :: Increment e => Int -> GADT e Int
class Greet a where
_Greet :: Prism' a String
class Increment a where
_Increment :: Prism' a Int
instance Greet (Either String Int) where
_Greet = _Left
instance Increment (Either String Int) where
_Increment = _Right
run :: GADT e a -> Either String Int
run = go
where
go (One x) = review _Greet x
go (Two x) = review _Greet "Hello"
The idea is that each entry in the GADT has an associated error, which I'm modelling with a Prism into some larger structure. When I "interpret" this GADT, I provide a concrete type for e that has instances for all of these Prisms. However, for each individual case, I don't want to be able to use instances that weren't declared in the constructor's associated context.
The above code should be an error, because when I pattern match on Two I should learn that I can only use Increment e, but I'm using Greet. I can see why this works - Either String Int has an instance for Greet, so everything checks out.
I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. Maybe I can use entailment from Data.Constraint, or perhaps there's a trick with higher rank types.
Any ideas?
The problem is you're fixing the final result type, so the instance exists and the type checker can find it.
Try something like:
run :: GADT e a -> e
Now the result type can't pick the instance for review and parametricity enforces your invariant.