I have pretty decent intuition about types Haskell prohibits as "impredicative": namely ones where a forall appears in an argument to a type constructor other than ->. But just what is predicativity? What makes it important? How does it relate to the word "predicate"?
The central question of these type systems is: "Can you substitute a polymorphic type in for a type variable?". Predicative type systems are the no-nonsense schoolmarm answering, "ABSOLUTELY NOT", while impredicative type systems are your carefree buddy who thinks that sounds like a fun idea and what could possibly go wrong?
Now, Haskell muddies the discussion a bit because it believes polymorphism should be useful but invisible. So for the remainder of this post, I will be writing in a dialect of Haskell where uses of forall are not just allowed but required. This way we can distinguish between the type a, which is a monomorphic type which draws its value from a typing environment that we can define later, and the type forall a. a, which is one of the harder polymorphic types to inhabit. We'll also allow forall to go pretty much anywhere in a type -- as we'll see, GHC restricts its type syntax as a "fail-fast" mechanism rather than as a technical requirement.
Suppose we have told the compiler id :: forall a. a -> a. Can we later ask to use id as if it had type (forall b. b) -> (forall b. b)? Impredicative type systems are okay with this, because we can instantiate the quantifier in id's type to forall b. b, and substitute forall b. b for a everywhere in the result. Predicative type systems are a bit more wary of that: only monomorphic types are allowed in. (So if we had a particular b, we could write id :: b -> b.)
There's a similar story about [] :: forall a. [a] and (:) :: forall a. a -> [a] -> [a]. While your carefree buddy may be okay with [] :: [forall b. b] and (:) :: (forall b. b) -> [forall b. b] -> [forall b. b], the predicative schoolmarm isn't, so much. In fact, as you can see from the only two constructors of lists, there is no way to produce lists containing polymorphic values without instantiating the type variable in their constructors to a polymorphic value. So although the type [forall b. b] is allowed in our dialect of Haskell, it isn't really sensible -- there's no (terminating) terms of that type. This motivates GHC's decision to complain if you even think about such a type -- it's the compiler's way of telling you "don't bother".*
Well, what makes the schoolmarm so strict? As usual, the answer is about keeping type-checking and type-inference doable. Type inference for impredicative types is right out. Type checking seems like it might be possible, but it's bloody complicated and nobody wants to maintain that.
On the other hand, some might object that GHC is perfectly happy with some types that appear to require impredicativity:
> :set -Rank2Types
> :t id :: (forall b. b) -> (forall b. b)
{- no complaint, but very chatty -}
It turns out that some slightly-restricted versions of impredicativity are not too bad: specifically, type-checking higher-rank types (which allow type variables to be substituted by polymorphic types when they are only arguments to (->)) is relatively simple. You do lose type inference above rank-2, and principal types above rank-1, but sometimes higher rank types are just what the doctor ordered.
I don't know about the etymology of the word, though.
* You might wonder whether you can do something like this:
data FooTy a where
FooTm :: FooTy (forall a. a)
Then you would get a term (FooTm) whose type had something polymorphic as an argument to something other than (->) (namely, FooTy), you don't have to cross the schoolmarm to do it, and so the belief "applying non-(->) stuff to polymorphic types isn't useful because you can't make them" would be invalidated. GHC doesn't let you write FooTy, and I will admit I'm not sure whether there's a principled reason for the restriction or not.
(Quick update some years later: there is a good, principled reason that FooTm is still not okay. Namely, the way that GADTs are implemented in GHC is via type equalities, so the expanded type of FooTm is actually FooTm :: forall a. (a ~ forall b. b) => FooTy a. Hence to actually use FooTm, one would indeed need to instantiate a type variable with a polymorphic type. Thanks to Stephanie Weirich for pointing this out to me.)
Let me just add a point regarding the "etymology" issue, since the other answer by #DanielWagner covers much of the technical ground.
A predicate on something like a is a -> Bool. Now a predicate logic is one that can in some sense reason about predicates -- so if we have some predicate P and we can talk about, for a given a, P(a), now in a "predicate logic" (such as first-order logic) we can also say ∀a. P(a). So we can quantify over variables and discuss the behavior of predicates over such things.
Now, in turn, we say a statement is predicative if all of the things a predicate is applied to are introduced prior to it. So statements are "predicated on" things that already exist. In turn, a statement is impredicative if it can in some sense refer to itself by its "bootstraps".
So in the case of e.g. the id example above, we find that we can give a type to id such that it takes something of the type of id to something else of the type of id. So now we can give a function a type where an quantified variable (introduced by forall a.) can "expand" to be the same type as that of the entire function itself!
Hence impredicativity introduces a possibility of a certain "self reference". But wait, you might say, wouldn't such a thing lead to contradiction? The answer is: "well, sometimes." In particular, "System F" which is the polymorphic lambda calculus and the essential "core" of GHC's "core" language allows a form of impredicativity that nonetheless has two levels -- the value level, and the type level, which is allowed to quantify over itself. In this two-level stratification, we can have impredicativity and not contradiction/paradox.
Although note that this neat trick is very delicate and easy to screw up by the addition of more features, as this collection of articles by Oleg indicates: http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/impredicativity-bites.html
I'd like to make a comment on the etymology issue, since #sclv's answer isn't quite right (etymologically, not conceptually).
Go back in time, to the days of Russell when everything is set theory— including logic. One of the logical notions of particular import is the "principle of comprehension"; that is, given some logical predicate φ:A→2 we would like to have some principle to determine the set of all elements satisfying that predicate, written as "{x | φ(x) }" or some variation thereon. The key point to bear in mind is that "sets" and "predicates" are viewed as being fundamentally different things: predicates are mappings from objects to truth values, and sets are objects. Thus, for example, we may allow quantifying over sets but not quantifying over predicates.
Now, Russell was rather concerned by his eponymous paradox, and sought some way to get rid of it. There are numerous fixes, but the one of interest here is to restrict the principle of comprehension. But first, the formal definition of the principle: ∃S.∀x.S x ↔︎ φ(x); that is, for our particular φ there exists some object (i.e., set) S such that for every object (also a set, but thought of as an element) x, we have that S x (you can think of this as meaning "x∈S", though logicians of the time gave "∈" a different meaning than mere juxtaposition) is true just in case φ(x) is true. If we take the principle exactly as written then we end up with an impredicative theory. However, we can place restrictions on which φ we're allowed to take the comprehension of. (For example, if we say that φ must not contain any second-order quantifiers.) Thus, for any restriction R, if a set S is determined (i.e., generated via comprehension) by some R-predicate, then we say that S is "R-predicative". If every set in our language is R-predicative then we say that our language is "R-predicative". And then, as is often the case with hyphenated prefix things, the prefix gets dropped off and left implicit, whence "predicative" languages. And, naturally, languages which are not predicative are "impredicative".
That's the old school etymology. Since those days the terms have gone off and gotten lives of their own. The ways we use "predicative" and "impredicative" today are quite different, because the things we're concerned about have changed. So it can sometimes be a bit hard to see how the heck our modern usage ties back to this stuff. Honestly, I don't think knowing the etymology really helps any in terms of figuring out what the words are really about (these days).
Related
My question came up while following the tutorial Functors, Applicatives, And Monads In Pictures and its JavaScript version.
When the text says that functor unwraps value from the context, I understand that a Just 5 -> 5 transformation is happening. As per What does the "Just" syntax mean in Haskell? , Just is "defined in scope" of the Maybe monad.
My question is what is so magical about the whole unwrapping thing? I mean, what is the problem of having some language rule which automatically unwraps the "scoped" variables? It looks to me that this action is merely a lookup in some kind of a table where the symbol Just 5 corresponds to the integer 5.
My question is inspired by the JavaScript version, where Just 5 is prototype array instance. So unwrapping is, indeed, not rocket science at all.
Is this a "for-computation" type of reason or a "for-programmer" one? Why do we distinguish Just 5 from 5 on the programming language level?
First of all, I don't think you can understand Monads and the like without understanding a Haskell like type system (i.e. without learning a language like Haskell). Yes, there are many tutorials that claim otherwise, but I've read a lot of them before learning Haskell and I didn't get it. So my advice: If you want to understand Monads learn at least some Haskell.
To your question "Why do we distinguish Just 5 from 5 on the programming language level?". For type safety. In most languages that happen not to be Haskell null, nil, whatever, is often used to represent the absence of a value. This however often results in things like NullPointerExceptions, because you didn't anticipate that a value may not be there.
In Haskell there is no null. So if you have a value of type Int, or anything else, that value can not be null. You are guarantied that there is a value. Great! But sometimes you actually want/need to encode the absence of a value. In Haskell we use Maybe for that. So something of type Maybe Int can either be something like Just 5 or Nothing. This way it is explicit that the value may not be there and you can not accidentally forget that it might be Nothing because you have to explicitly unwrap the value.
This has nothing really to do with Monads, except that Maybe happens to implement the Monad type class (a type class is a bit like a Java interface, if you are familiar with Java). That is Maybe is not primarily a Monad, but just happens to also be a Monad.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong direction. Monad is explicitly not about unwrapping. Monad is about composition.
It lets you combine (not necessarily apply) a function of type a -> m b with a value of type m a to get a value of type m b. I can understand where you might think the obvious way to do that is unwrapping the value of type m a into an value of type a. But very few Monad instances work that way. In fact, the only ones that can work that way are the ones that are equivalent to the Identity type. For nearly all instances of Monad, it's just not possible to unwrap a value.
Consider Maybe. Unwrapping a value of type Maybe a into a value of type a is impossible when the starting value is Nothing. Monadic composition has to do something more interesting than just unwrapping.
Consider []. Unwrapping a value of type [a] into a value of type a is impossible unless the input just happens to be a list of length 1. In every other case, monadic composition is doing something more interesting than unwrapping.
Consider IO. A value like getLine :: IO String doesn't contain a String value. It's plain impossible to unwrap, because it isn't wrapping something. Monadic composition of IO values doesn't unwrap anything. It combines IO values into more complex IO values.
I think it's worthwhile to adjust your perspective on what Monad means. If it were only an unwrapping interface, it would be pretty useless. It's more subtle, though. It's a composition interface.
A possible example is this: consider the Haskell type Maybe (Maybe Int). Its values can be of the following form
Nothing
Just Nothing
Just (Just n) for some integer n
Without the Just wrapper we couldn't distinguish between the first two.
Indeed, the whole point of the optional type Maybe a is to add a new value (Nothing) to an existing type a. To ensure such Nothing is indeed a fresh value, we wrap the other values inside Just.
It also helps during type inference. When we see the function call f 'a' we can see that f is called at the type Char, and not at type Maybe Char or Maybe (Maybe Char). The typeclass system would allow f to have a different implementation in each of these cases (this is similar to "overloading" in some OOP languages).
My question is, what is so magical about the whole unwrapping thing?
There is nothing magical about it. You can use garden-variety pattern matching (here in the shape of a case expression) to define...
mapMaybe :: (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
mapMaybe f mx = case mx of
Just x -> Just (f x)
_ -> mx
... which is exactly the same than fmap for Maybe. The only thing the Functor class adds -- and it is a very useful thing, make no mistake -- is an extra level of abstraction that covers various structures that can be mapped over.
Why do we distinguish Just 5 from 5 on programming language level?
More meaningful than the distinction between Just 5 and 5 is the one between their types -- e.g. between Maybe Intand Int. If you have x :: Int, you can be certain x is an Int value you can work with. If you have mx :: Maybe Int, however, you have no such certainty, as the Int might be missing (i.e. mx might be Nothing), and the type system forces you to acknowledge and deal with this possibility.
See also: jpath's answer for further comments on the usefulness of Maybe (which isn't necessarily tied to classes such as Functor and Monad); Carl's answer for further comments on the usefulness of classes like Functor and Monad (beyond the Maybe example).
What "unwrap" means depends on the container. Maybe is just one example. "Unwrapping" means something completely different when the container is [] instead of Maybe.
The magical about the whole unwrapping thing is the abstraction: In a Monad we have a notion of "unwrapping" which abstracts the nature of the container; and then it starts to get "magical"...
You ask what Just means: Just is nothing but a Datatype constructor in Haskell defined via a data declaration like :
data Maybe a = Just a | Nothing
Just take a value of type a and creates a value of type Maybe a. It's Haskell's way to distinguigh values of type a from values of type Maybe a
First of all, you need to remove monads from your question. They have nothing to do this. Treat this articles as one of the points of view on the monads, maybe it does not suit you, you may still little understood in the type system that would understand monads in haskell.
And so, your question can be rephrased as: Why is there no implicit conversion Just 5 => 5? But answer is very simple. Because value Just 5 has type Maybe Integer, so this value may would be Nothing, but what must do compiler in this case? Only programmer can resolve this situation.
But there is more uncomfortable question. There are types, for example, newtype Identity a = Identity a. It's just wrapper around some value. So, why is there no impliciti conversion Identity a => a?
The simple answer is - an attempt to realize this would lead to a different system types, which would not have had many fine qualities that exist in the current. According to this, it can be sacrificed for the benefit of other possibilities.
Why do we need Control.Lens.Reified? Is there some reason I can't place a Lens directly into a container? What does reify mean anyway?
We need reified lenses because Haskell's type system is predicative. I don't know the technical details of exactly what that means, but it prohibits types like
[Lens s t a b]
For some purposes, it's acceptable to use
Functor f => [(a -> f b) -> s -> f t]
instead, but when you reach into that, you don't get a Lens; you get a LensLike specialized to some functor or another. The ReifiedBlah newtypes let you hang on to the full polymorphism.
Operationally, [ReifiedLens s t a b] is a list of functions each of which takes a Functor f dictionary, while forall f . Functor f => [LensLike f s t a b] is a function that takes a Functor f dictionary and returns a list.
As for what "reify" means, well, the dictionary will say something, and that seems to translate into a rather stunning variety of specific meanings in Haskell. So no comment on that.
The problem is that, in Haskell, type abstraction and application are completely implicit; the compiler is supposed to insert them where needed. Various attempts at designing 'impredicative' extensions, where the compiler would make clever guesses where to put them, have failed; so the safest thing ends up being relying on the Haskell 98 rules:
Type abstractions occur only at the top level of a function definition.
Type applications occur immediately whenever a variable with a polymorphic type is used in an expression.
So if I define a simple lens:[1]
lensHead f [] = pure []
lensHead f (x:xn) = (:xn) <$> f x
and use it in an expression:
[lensHead]
lensHead gets automatically applied to some set of type parameters; at which point it's no longer a lens, because it's not polymorphic in the functor anymore. The take-away is: an expression always has some monomorphic type; so it's not a lens. (You'll note that the lens functions take arguments of type Getter and Setter, which are monomorphic types, for similar reasons to this. But a [Getter s a] isn't a list of lenses, because they've been specialized to only getters.)
What does reify mean? The dictionary definition is 'make real'. 'Reifying' is used in philosophy to refer to the act of regarding or treating something as real (rather than ideal or abstract). In programming, it tends to refer to taking something that normally can't be treated as a data structure and representing it as one. For example, in really old Lisps, there didn't use to be first-class functions; instead, you had to use S-Expressions to pass 'functions' around, and eval them when you needed to call the function. The S-Expressions represented the functions in a way you could manipulate in the program, which is referred to as reification.
In Haskell, we don't typically need such elaborate reification strategies as Lisp S-Expressions, partly because the language is designed to avoid needing them; but since
newtype ReifiedLens s t a b = ReifiedLens (Lens s t a b)
has the same effect of taking a polymorphic value and turning it into a true first-class value, it's referred to as reification.
Why does this work, if expressions always have monomorphic types? Well, because the Rank2Types extension adds a third rule:
Type abstractions occur at the top-level of the arguments to certain functions, with so-called rank 2 types.
ReifiedLens is such a rank-2 function; so when you say
ReifiedLens l
you get a type lambda around the argument to ReifiedLens, and then l is applied immediately to the the lambda-bound type argument. So l is effectively just eta-expanded. (Compilers are free to eta-reduce this and just use l directly).
Then, when you say
f (ReifiedLens l) = ...
on the right-hand side, l is a variable with polymorphic type, so every use of l is immediately implicitly assigned to whatever type arguments are needed for the expression to type-check. So everything works the way you expect.
The other way to think about is that, if you say
newtype ReifiedLens s t a b = ReifiedLens { unReify :: Lens s t a b }
the two functions ReifiedLens and unReify act like explicit type abstraction and application operators; this allows the compiler to identify where you want the abstractions and applications to take place well enough that the issues with impredicative type systems don't come up.
[1] In lens terminology, this is apparently called something other than a 'lens'; my entire knowledge of lenses comes from SPJ's presentation on them so I have no way to verify that. The point remains, since the polymorphism is still necessary to make it work as both a getter and a setter.
I once asked a question on haskell beginners, whether to use data/newtype or a typeclass. In my particular case it turned out that no typeclass was required. Additionally Tom Ellis gave me a brilliant advice, what to do when in doubt:
The simplest way of answering this which is mostly correct is:
use data
I know that typeclasses can make a few things a bit prettier, but not much AFIK. It also strikes me that typeclasses are mostly used for brain stem stuff, wheras in newer stuff, new typeclasses hardly ever get introduced and everything is done with data/newtype.
Now I wonder if there are cases where typeclasses are absolutely required and things could not be expressed with data/newtype?
Answering a similar question on StackOverflow Gabriel Gonzales said
Use type classes if:
There is only one correct behavior per given type
The type class has associated equations (i.e. "laws") that all instances must satisfy
Hmm ..
Or are typeclasses and data/newtype somewhat competing concepts which coexist for historical reasons?
I would argue that typeclasses are an essential part of Haskell.
They are the part of Haskell that makes it the easiest language I know of to refactor, and they are a great asset to your being able to reason about the correctness of code.
So, let's talk about dictionary passing.
Now, any sort of dictionary passing is a big improvement in the state of affairs in traditional object oriented languages. We know how to do OOP with vtables in C++. However, the vtable is 'part of the object' in OOP languages. Fusing the vtable with the object forces your code into a form where you have a rigid discipline about who can extend the core types with new features, its really only the original author of the class who has to incorporate all the things others want to bake into their type. This leads to "lava flow code" and all sorts of other design antipatterns, etc.
Languages like C# give you the ability to hack in extension methods to fake new stuff, and "traits" in languages like scala and multiple inheritance in other languages let you delegate some of the work as well, but they are partial solutions.
When you split the vtable from the objects they manipulate you get a heady rush of power. You can now pass them around wherever you want, but then of course you need to name them and talk about them. The ML discipline around modules / functors and the explicit dictionary passing style take this approach.
Typeclasses take a slightly different tack. We rely on uniqueness of a typeclass instance for a given type and it is in large part it is this choice permits us to get away with such simple core data types.
Why?
Because we can move the use of the dictionaries to the use sites, and don't have to carry them around with the data types and we can rely upon the fact that when we do so nothing has changed about the behavior of the code.
Mechanical translation of the code to more complex manually passed dictionaries loses the uniqueness of such a dictionary at a given type. Passing the dictionaries in at different points in your program now leads to programs with greatly differing behavior. You may or may not have to remember the dictionaries your data type was constructed with, and woe betide you if you want to have conditional behavior based on what your arguments are.
For simple examples like Set you can get away with a manual dictionary translation. The price doesn't seem so high. You have to bake in the dictionary for, say, how you want to sort the Set when you make the object and then insert/lookup, would just preserve your choice. This might be a cost you can bear. When you union two Sets now, of course, its up in the air which ordering you get. Maybe you take the smaller and insert it into the larger, but then the ordering would change willy nilly, so instead you have to take say, the left and always insert it into the right, or document this haphazard behavior. You're now being forced into suboptimal performing solutions in the interest of 'flexibility'.
But Set is a trivial example. There you might bake an index into the type about which instance it was you are using, there is only one class involved. What happens when you want more complex behavior? One of the things we do with Haskell is work with monad transformers. Now you have lots of instances floating around -- and you don't have a good place to store them all, MonadReader, MonadWriter, MonadState, etc. may all apply.. conditionally, based on the underlying monad. what happens when you hoist and swap it out and now different things may or may not apply?
Carrying around an explicit dictionaries for this is a lot of work, there isn't a good place to store them and you are asking users to adopt a global program transformation to adopt this practice.
These are the things that typeclasses make effortless.
Do I believe you should use them for everything?
Not by a long shot.
But I can't agree with the other replies here that they are inessential to Haskell.
Haskell is the only language that supplies them and they are critical to at least my ability to think in this language, and are a huge part of why I consider Haskell home.
I do agree with a few things here, use typeclasses when there are laws and when the choice is unambiguous.
I'd challenge however, that if you don't have laws or if the choice isn't unambiguous, you may not know enough about how to model the problem domain, and should be seeking something for which you can fit it into the typeclass mold, possibly even into existing abstractions -- and when you finally find that solution, you'll find you can easily reuse it.
Typeclasses are, in most cases, inessential. Any typeclass code can be mechanically converted into dictionary-passing style. They mainly provide convenience, sometimes an essential amount of convenience (cf. kmett's answer).
Sometimes the single-instance property of typeclasses is used to enforce invariants. For example, you could not convert Data.Set into dictionary-passing style safely, because if you inserted twice with two different Ord dictionaries, you could break the data structure invariant. Of course you could still convert any working code to working code in dictionary-passing style, but you would not be able to outlaw as much broken code.
Laws are another important cultural aspect to typeclasses. The compiler does not enforce laws, but Haskell programmers expect typeclasses to come with laws that all the instances satisfy. This can be leveraged to provide stonger guarantees about some functions. This advantage comes only from the conventions of the community, and is not a formal property of a language.
To answer that part of the question:
"typeclasses and data/newtype somewhat competing concepts"
No. Typeclasses are an extension to the type system, that allows you to make constraints on polymorphic arguments. Like most things in programming, they are, of course, syntactic sugar [so they aren't essential in the sense that their use can't be replaced by anything else]. That doesn't mean they're superfluous. It just means you could express similar things using other language facilities, but you'd lose some clarity while you're at it. Dictionary passing can be used for mostly the same things, but it's ultimately less strict in the type system because it allows changing behavior at runtime (which is also an excellent example of where you'd use dictionary passing instead of type classes).
Data and newtype still mean exactly the same thing whether you have typeclasses or not: Introduce a new type, in the case of data as new kind of data structure, and in case of newtype as a typesafe variant of type.
To expand slightly on my comment I would suggest always starting by using data and dictionary passing. If the boilerplate and manual instance plumbing becomes too much to bear then consider introducing a typeclass. I suspect this approach generally leads to a cleaner design.
I just want to make a really mundane point about syntax.
People tend to underestimate the convenience afforded by type classes, probably because they have never tried Haskell without using any. This is a "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" sort of phenomenon.
while :: Monad m -> m Bool -> m a -> m ()
while m p body = (>>=) m p $ \x ->
if x
then (>>) m body (while m p body)
else return m ()
average :: Floating a -> a -> a -> a -> a
average f a b c = (/) f ((+) (floatingToNum f) a ((+) (floatingToNum f) b c))
(fromInteger (floatingToNum f) 3)
This is the historical motivation for type classes and it remains valid today. If we didn't have type classes, we'd certainly need some kind of replacement for it to avoid writing monstrosities like these. (Maybe something like record puns or Agda's "open".)
I know that typeclasses can make a few things a bit prettier, but not much AFIK.
Bit prettier?? No! Way prettier! (as others have already noted)
However the answer to this really depends very much where this question comes from.
If Haskell is your tool of choice for serious software engineering, typeclasses are
powerful and essential.
If you are a beginner using haskell to learn (functional) programming, the complexity and difficulty of typeclasses can outweigh the advantages – certainly at the beginning of your studies.
Here are a couple of examples comparing ghc with gofer (predecessor of hugs,
predecessor of modern haskell):
gofer
? 1 ++ [2,3,4]
ERROR: Type error in application
*** expression :: 1 ++ [2,3,4]
*** term :: 1
*** type :: Int
*** does not match :: [Int]
Now compare with ghc:
Prelude> 1 ++ [2,3,4]
:2:1:
No instance for (Num [a0]) arising from the literal `1'
Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Num [a0])
In the first argument of `(++)', namely `1'
In the expression: 1 ++ [2, 3, 4]
In an equation for `it': it = 1 ++ [2, 3, 4]
:2:7:
No instance for (Num a0) arising from the literal `2'
The type variable `a0' is ambiguous
Possible fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
Note: there are several potential instances:
instance Num Double -- Defined in `GHC.Float'
instance Num Float -- Defined in `GHC.Float'
instance Integral a => Num (GHC.Real.Ratio a)
-- Defined in `GHC.Real'
...plus three others
In the expression: 2
In the second argument of `(++)', namely `[2, 3, 4]'
In the expression: 1 ++ [2, 3, 4]
This should suggest that error-message-wise, not only are typeclasses not prettier, they can be uglier!
One can go all the way (in gofer) and use the 'simple prelude' that uses
no typeclasses at all. This makes it quite unrealistic for serious programming
but real neat for wrapping your head round Hindley-Milner:
Standard Prelude
? :t (==)
(==) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
? :t (+)
(+) :: Num a => a -> a -> a
Simple Prelude
? :t (==)
(==) :: a -> a -> Bool
? :t (+)
(+) :: Int -> Int -> Int
What it says in the title. If I write a type signature, is it possible to algorithmically generate an expression which has that type signature?
It seems plausible that it might be possible to do this. We already know that if the type is a special-case of a library function's type signature, Hoogle can find that function algorithmically. On the other hand, many simple problems relating to general expressions are actually unsolvable (e.g., it is impossible to know if two functions do the same thing), so it's hardly implausible that this is one of them.
It's probably bad form to ask several questions all at once, but I'd like to know:
Can it be done?
If so, how?
If not, are there any restricted situations where it becomes possible?
It's quite possible for two distinct expressions to have the same type signature. Can you compute all of them? Or even some of them?
Does anybody have working code which does this stuff for real?
Djinn does this for a restricted subset of Haskell types, corresponding to a first-order logic. It can't manage recursive types or types that require recursion to implement, though; so, for instance, it can't write a term of type (a -> a) -> a (the type of fix), which corresponds to the proposition "if a implies a, then a", which is clearly false; you can use it to prove anything. Indeed, this is why fix gives rise to ⊥.
If you do allow fix, then writing a program to give a term of any type is trivial; the program would simply print fix id for every type.
Djinn is mostly a toy, but it can do some fun things, like deriving the correct Monad instances for Reader and Cont given the types of return and (>>=). You can try it out by installing the djinn package, or using lambdabot, which integrates it as the #djinn command.
Oleg at okmij.org has an implementation of this. There is a short introduction here but the literate Haskell source contains the details and the description of the process. (I'm not sure how this corresponds to Djinn in power, but it is another example.)
There are cases where is no unique function:
fst', snd' :: (a, a) -> a
fst' (a,_) = a
snd' (_,b) = b
Not only this; there are cases where there are an infinite number of functions:
list0, list1, list2 :: [a] -> a
list0 l = l !! 0
list1 l = l !! 1
list2 l = l !! 2
-- etc.
-- Or
mkList0, mkList1, mkList2 :: a -> [a]
mkList0 _ = []
mkList1 a = [a]
mkList2 a = [a,a]
-- etc.
(If you only want total functions, then consider [a] as restricted to infinite lists for list0, list1 etc, i.e. data List a = Cons a (List a))
In fact, if you have recursive types, any types involving these correspond to an infinite number of functions. However, at least in the case above, there is a countable number of functions, so it is possible to create an (infinite) list containing all of them. But, I think the type [a] -> [a] corresponds to an uncountably infinite number of functions (again restrict [a] to infinite lists) so you can't even enumerate them all!
(Summary: there are types that correspond to a finite, countably infinite and uncountably infinite number of functions.)
This is impossible in general (and for languages like Haskell that does not even has the strong normalization property), and only possible in some (very) special cases (and for more restricted languages), such as when a codomain type has the only one constructor (for example, a function f :: forall a. a -> () can be determined uniquely). In order to reduce a set of possible definitions for a given signature to a singleton set with just one definition need to give more restrictions (in the form of additional properties, for example, it is still difficult to imagine how this can be helpful without giving an example of use).
From the (n-)categorical point of view types corresponds to objects, terms corresponds to arrows (constructors also corresponds to arrows), and function definitions corresponds to 2-arrows. The question is analogous to the question of whether one can construct a 2-category with the required properties by specifying only a set of objects. It's impossible since you need either an explicit construction for arrows and 2-arrows (i.e., writing terms and definitions), or deductive system which allows to deduce the necessary structure using a certain set of properties (that still need to be defined explicitly).
There is also an interesting question: given an ADT (i.e., subcategory of Hask) is it possible to automatically derive instances for Typeable, Data (yes, using SYB), Traversable, Foldable, Functor, Pointed, Applicative, Monad, etc (?). In this case, we have the necessary signatures as well as additional properties (for example, the monad laws, although these properties can not be expressed in Haskell, but they can be expressed in a language with dependent types). There is some interesting constructions:
http://ulissesaraujo.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/catamorphisms-in-haskell
which shows what can be done for the list ADT.
The question is actually rather deep and I'm not sure of the answer, if you're asking about the full glory of Haskell types including type families, GADT's, etc.
What you're asking is whether a program can automatically prove that an arbitrary type is inhabited (contains a value) by exhibiting such a value. A principle called the Curry-Howard Correspondence says that types can be interpreted as mathematical propositions, and the type is inhabited if the proposition is constructively provable. So you're asking if there is a program that can prove a certain class of propositions to be theorems. In a language like Agda, the type system is powerful enough to express arbitrary mathematical propositions, and proving arbitrary ones is undecidable by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. On the other hand, if you drop down to (say) pure Hindley-Milner, you get a much weaker and (I think) decidable system. With Haskell 98, I'm not sure, because type classes are supposed to be able to be equivalent to GADT's.
With GADT's, I don't know if it's decidable or not, though maybe some more knowledgeable folks here would know right away. For example it might be possible to encode the halting problem for a given Turing machine as a GADT, so there is a value of that type iff the machine halts. In that case, inhabitability is clearly undecidable. But, maybe such an encoding isn't quite possible, even with type families. I'm not currently fluent enough in this subject for it to be obvious to me either way, though as I said, maybe someone else here knows the answer.
(Update:) Oh a much simpler interpretation of your question occurs to me: you may be asking if every Haskell type is inhabited. The answer is obviously not. Consider the polymorphic type
a -> b
There is no function with that signature (not counting something like unsafeCoerce, which makes the type system inconsistent).
Does Haskell, or a specific compiler, have anything like type-level lambdas (if that's even a term)?
To elaborate, say I have a parametrized type Foo a b and want Foo _ b to be an instance of, say, Functor. Is there any mechanism that would let me do something akin to
instance Functor (\a -> Foo a b) where
...
?
While sclv answered your direct question, I'll add as an aside that there's more than one possible meaning for "type-level lambda". Haskell has a variety of type operators but none really behave as proper lambdas:
Type constructors: Abstract type operators that introduce new types. Given a type A and a type constructor F, the function application F A is also a type but carries no further (type level) information than "this is F applied to A".
Polymorphic types: A type like a -> b -> a implicitly means forall a b. a -> b -> a. The forall binds the type variables within its scope, thus behaving somewhat like a lambda. If memory serves me this is roughly the "capital lambda" in System F.
Type synonyms: A limited form of type operators that must be fully applied, and can produce only base types and type constructors.
Type classes: Essentially functions from types/type constructors to values, with the ability to inspect the type argument (i.e., by pattern matching on type constructors in roughly the same way that regular functions pattern match on data constructors) and serving to define a membership predicate on types. These behave more like a regular function in some ways, but are very limited: type classes aren't first-class entities that can be manipulated, and they operate on types only as input (not output) and values only as output (definitely not input).
Functional dependencies: Along with some other extensions, these allow type classes to implicitly produce types as results as well, which can then be used as the parameters to other type classes. Still very limited, e.g. by being unable to take other type classes as arguments.
Type families: An alternate approach to what functional dependencies do; they allow functions on types to be defined in a manner that looks much closer to regular value-level functions. The usual restrictions still apply, however.
Other extensions relax some of the restrictions mentioned, or provide partial workarounds (see also: Oleg's type hackery). However, pretty much the one thing you can't do anywhere in any way is exactly what you were asking about, namely introduce new a binding scope with an anonymous function abstraction.
From TypeCompose:
newtype Flip (~>) b a = Flip { unFlip :: a ~> b }
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/TypeCompose/0.6.3/doc/html/Control-Compose.html#t:Flip
Also, if something is a Functor in two arguments, you can make it a bifunctor:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/category-extras/0.44.4/doc/html/Control-Bifunctor.html
(or, in a later category-extras, a more general version: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/category-extras/0.53.5/doc/html/Control-Functor.html#t:Bifunctor)
I don't like the idea of answering my own question, but apparently, according to several people on #haskell on Freenode, Haskell doesn't have type-level lambdas.
EHC (and perhaps also its successor, UHC) has type-level lambdas, but they are undocumented and not as powerful as in a dependently-typed language. I recommend you use a dependently-typed language such as Agda (similar to Haskell) or Coq (different, but still pure functional at its core, and can be interpreted and compiled either lazily or strictly!) But I'm biased towards such languages, and this is probably 100x overkill for what you are asking for here!
The closest I know of to get a type lambda is by defining a type synonym. In your example,
data Foo a b = Foo a b
type FooR a b = Foo b a
instance Functor (FooR Int) where
...
But even with -XTypeSynonymInstances -XFlexibleInstances this doesn't work; GHC expects the type syn to be fully applied in the instance head. There may be some way to arrange it with type families.
Yeah, what Gabe said, which is somewhat answered by type families:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Type_families
Depending on the situation, you could replace your original type definition with a "flipped" version, and then make a type synonym for the "correct" version.
From
data X a b = Y a b
instance Functor (\a -> X a b) where ...
to
data XFlip b a = Y a b -- Use me for instance decalarations
type X a b = XFlip b a -- Use me for everything else
instance Functor XFlip where ...