Lately I've been experimenting with the general question, what will GHC allow me to do? I was surprised to find, that it considers the following program as valid
module BrokenRecursiveType where
data FooType = Foo FooType
main = print "it compiles!"
At first I thought, how is this useful? Then I remembered that Haskell is lazy, so I could, perhaps, define a function like the following to use it
allTheFoos = Foo allTheFoos
Then I thought, so how is this useful?
Are there any valuable use cases (thought up or actually experienced) for types of similar form to FooType?
An evaluation counter
You could, hypothetically, use FooType to optionally abort a recursive function early: For example, take this code:
foo _ 0 = 1
foo (Foo x) n = n * foo x (n-1)
If you call foo allTheFoos, then you get the plain factorial function. But you can pass a different value of type FooType, e.g.
atMostFiveSteps = Foo (Foo (Foo (Foo (Foo (error "out of steps")))))
and then foo atMostFiveSteps will only work for values smaller than 6.
I’m neither saying that this is particularly useful nor that this is the best way to implement such a feature...
A void type
BTW, there is a similar construction, namely
newtype FooType' = Foo' FooType'
which is useful: It is one way to define the void type that has no values besides ⊥. You can still define
allTheFoos' = Foo' allTheFoos'
as before, but because operationally, Foo does nothing, this is equivalent to x = x and hence also ⊥.
Let's just slightly extend your data type - let's wrap the recursion into a type parameters:
data FooType f = Foo (f (FooType f))
(so your original data type would be FooType Identity).
Now we can modulate the recursive reference by any f :: * -> *. But this extended type is extremely useful! In fact, it can be used to express any recursive data type using a non-recursive one. One well kwnown package where it's defined is recursion-schemes, as Fix:
newtype Fix f = Fix (f (Fix f))
For example, if we define
data List' a r = Cons' a r | Nil'
then Fix (List' a) is isomorphic to [a]:
nil :: Fix (List' a)
nil = Fix Nil'
cons :: a -> Fix (List' a) -> Fix (List' a)
cons x xs = Fix (Cons' x xs)
Moreover, Fix allows us to define many generic operations on recursive data types such as folding/unfolding (catamorphisms/anamorphisms).
An extension of your FooType could be an abstract syntax tree. Taking a simple example language only having integers, sums and inverses, the type definition would be
data Exp = AnInt Integer
| AnInverse Exp
| ASum Exp Exp
All the following would be Exp instances:
AnInt 2 -- 2
AnInverse ( AnInt 2 ) -- 1 / 2
AnInverse ( ASum ( AnInt 2 ) ( AnInt 3 ) ) -- 1 / ( 2 + 3 )
AnInverse ( ASum 1 ( AnInverse 2 ) ) -- 1 / ( 1 + 1 / 2 )
If we removed AnInt and ASum from the Exp definition, the type would be isomorphic to your FooType (with AnInverse replacing Foo).
data FooType = Foo FooType
allTheFoos = Foo allTheFoos
I think there are two useful ways to look at this type.
First is the "moral" way—the common approach where we pretend that Haskell types don't have "bottom" (non-terminating) values. From this perspective, FooType is a unit type—a type that has only one value, just like (). This is because if you forbid bottoms, then the only value of type Foo is your allTheFoos.
From the "immoral" perspective (where bottoms are allowed), FooType is either an infinite tower of Foo constructors, or a finite tower of Foo constructors with a bottom at the bottom. This is similar to the "moral" interpretation of this type:
data Nat = Zero | Succ Nat
...but with bottom instead of zero, which means that you can't write functions like this one:
plus :: Nat -> Nat -> Nat
plus Zero y = y
plus (Succ x) y = Succ (x `plus` y)
Where does that leave us? I think the conclusion is that FooType isn't really an useful type, because:
If you look at it "morally" it's equivalent to ().
If you look at it "immorally" it's similar to Nat but any functions that tries to match a "zero" is non-terminating.
The following type:
newtype H a b = Fn {invoke :: H b a -> b}
while not exactly the same as yours but is in a similar spirit, have been shown by Launchbury, Krstic, and Sauerwein to have interesting uses regarding corouitining: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5135.pdf
Related
I am studying Haskell currently and try to understand a project that uses Haskell to implement cryptographic algorithms. After reading Learn You a Haskell for Great Good online, I begin to understand the code in that project. Then I found I am stuck at the following code with the "#" symbol:
-- | Generate an #n#-dimensional secret key over #rq#.
genKey :: forall rq rnd n . (MonadRandom rnd, Random rq, Reflects n Int)
=> rnd (PRFKey n rq)
genKey = fmap Key $ randomMtx 1 $ value #n
Here the randomMtx is defined as follows:
-- | A random matrix having a given number of rows and columns.
randomMtx :: (MonadRandom rnd, Random a) => Int -> Int -> rnd (Matrix a)
randomMtx r c = M.fromList r c <$> replicateM (r*c) getRandom
And PRFKey is defined below:
-- | A PRF secret key of dimension #n# over ring #a#.
newtype PRFKey n a = Key { key :: Matrix a }
All information sources I can find say that # is the as-pattern, but this piece of code is apparently not that case. I have checked the online tutorial, blogs and even the Haskell 2010 language report at https://www.haskell.org/definition/haskell2010.pdf. There is simply no answer to this question.
More code snippets can be found in this project using # in this way too:
-- | Generate public parameters (\( \mathbf{A}_0 \) and \(
-- \mathbf{A}_1 \)) for #n#-dimensional secret keys over a ring #rq#
-- for gadget indicated by #gad#.
genParams :: forall gad rq rnd n .
(MonadRandom rnd, Random rq, Reflects n Int, Gadget gad rq)
=> rnd (PRFParams n gad rq)
genParams = let len = length $ gadget #gad #rq
n = value #n
in Params <$> (randomMtx n (n*len)) <*> (randomMtx n (n*len))
I deeply appreciate any help on this.
That #n is an advanced feature of modern Haskell, which is usually not covered by tutorials like LYAH, nor can be found the the Report.
It's called a type application and is a GHC language extension. To understand it, consider this simple polymorphic function
dup :: forall a . a -> (a, a)
dup x = (x, x)
Intuitively calling dup works as follows:
the caller chooses a type a
the caller chooses a value x of the previously chosen type a
dup then answers with a value of type (a,a)
In a sense, dup takes two arguments: the type a and the value x :: a. However, GHC is usually able to infer the type a (e.g. from x, or from the context where we are using dup), so we usually pass only one argument to dup, namely x. For instance, we have
dup True :: (Bool, Bool)
dup "hello" :: (String, String)
...
Now, what if we want to pass a explicitly? Well, in that case we can turn on the TypeApplications extension, and write
dup #Bool True :: (Bool, Bool)
dup #String "hello" :: (String, String)
...
Note the #... arguments carrying types (not values). Those are something that exists at compile time, only -- at runtime the argument does not exist.
Why do we want that? Well, sometimes there is no x around, and we want to prod the compiler to choose the right a. E.g.
dup #Bool :: Bool -> (Bool, Bool)
dup #String :: String -> (String, String)
...
Type applications are often useful in combination with some other extensions which make type inference unfeasible for GHC, like ambiguous types or type families. I won't discuss those, but you can simply understand that sometimes you really need to help the compiler, especially when using powerful type-level features.
Now, about your specific case. I don't have all the details, I don't know the library, but it's very likely that your n represents a kind of natural-number value at the type level. Here we are diving in rather advanced extensions, like the above-mentioned ones plus DataKinds, maybe GADTs, and some typeclass machinery. While I can't explain everything, hopefully I can provide some basic insight. Intuitively,
foo :: forall n . some type using n
takes as argument #n, a kind-of compile-time natural, which is not passed at runtime. Instead,
foo :: forall n . C n => some type using n
takes #n (compile-time), together with a proof that n satisfies constraint C n. The latter is a run-time argument, which might expose the actual value of n. Indeed, in your case, I guess you have something vaguely resembling
value :: forall n . Reflects n Int => Int
which essentially allows the code to bring the type-level natural to the term-level, essentially accessing the "type" as a "value". (The above type is considered an "ambiguous" one, by the way -- you really need #n to disambiguate.)
Finally: why should one want to pass n at the type level if we then later on convert that to the term level? Wouldn't be easier to simply write out functions like
foo :: Int -> ...
foo n ... = ... use n
instead of the more cumbersome
foo :: forall n . Reflects n Int => ...
foo ... = ... use (value #n)
The honest answer is: yes, it would be easier. However, having n at the type level allows the compiler to perform more static checks. For instance, you might want a type to represent "integers modulo n", and allow adding those. Having
data Mod = Mod Int -- Int modulo some n
foo :: Int -> Mod -> Mod -> Mod
foo n (Mod x) (Mod y) = Mod ((x+y) `mod` n)
works, but there is no check that x and y are of the same modulus. We might add apples and oranges, if we are not careful. We could instead write
data Mod n = Mod Int -- Int modulo n
foo :: Int -> Mod n -> Mod n -> Mod n
foo n (Mod x) (Mod y) = Mod ((x+y) `mod` n)
which is better, but still allows to call foo 5 x y even when n is not 5. Not good. Instead,
data Mod n = Mod Int -- Int modulo n
-- a lot of type machinery omitted here
foo :: forall n . SomeConstraint n => Mod n -> Mod n -> Mod n
foo (Mod x) (Mod y) = Mod ((x+y) `mod` (value #n))
prevents things to go wrong. The compiler statically checks everything. The code is harder to use, yes, but in a sense making it harder to use is the whole point: we want to make it impossible for the user to try adding something of the wrong modulus.
Concluding: these are very advanced extensions. If you're a beginner, you will need to slowly progress towards these techniques. Don't be discouraged if you can't grasp them after only a short study, it does take some time. Make a small step at a time, solve some exercises for each feature to understand the point of it. And you'll always have StackOverflow when you are stuck :-)
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've discovered these kinds of type signatures:
x :: a b -> Int
x f = 3
y :: a b c -> Int
y f = 3
z :: a b c d -> Int
z f = 3
> x [1] -- 3
> y (1, 2) -- 3
> z (1, 2, 3) -- 3
Basically:
x only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 1 parameter or more.
y only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 2 parameters or more.
z only accepts a value inhabiting a type constructor with 3 parameters or more.
They are valid, but I'm not sure what they mean nor what they could be used for.
They seem related to polytypic notions or polymorphism over type constructors, but enforce an invariant based on many parameters the type constructor accepts.
Without further constraints, such types are useless – there's nothing you could really do with them, expect pass them right on. But that's actually the same situation with a signature a -> Int: if nothing is known about a, there's nothing you can do with it either!
However, like with e.g. toInteger :: Integral a => a -> Integer, adding constraints to the arguments allows you to do stuff. For instance,
import Data.Foldable
import Prelude hiding (foldr)
x' :: (Foldable a, Integral b) => a b -> Integer
x' = foldr ((+) . toInteger) 0
Rather more often than not, when you have a type of the form a b ... n o p q, then a b ... p is at least an instance of the Functor class, often also Applicative and Monad; sometimes Foldable, Traversable, or Comonad; sometimes a b ... o will be Arrow... These constraints allow you to do quite a lot with the composite types, without knowing what particular type constructors you're dealing with.
After studying #leftaroundabout answer and experimenting in GHCI, I've come to an understanding with composite types. Their unification with applied types is based on both the evaluation order and their type variable's kind signature. The evaluation order is quite important as a b c ~ (((a) b) c) while a (b c) is (a ((b) c). This makes a b c match composite types where a is matched with type constructors of kind * -> * -> *, and a b with * -> * and a b c with *.
I explained it fully with diagrams and GHCI code in this gist (https://gist.github.com/CMCDragonkai/2a1d3ecb67dcdabfc7e0) (it's too long for stack overflow)
I understand that when having
instance (Foo a) => Bar a
instance (Xyy a) => Bar a
GHC doesn't consider the contexts, and the instances are reported as duplicate.
What is counterintuitive, that (I guess) after selecting an instance, it still needs to check if the context matches, and if not, discard the instance. So why not reverse the order, and discard instances with non-matching contexts, and proceed with the remaining set.
Would this be intractable in some way? I see how it could cause more constraint resolution work upfront, but just as there is UndecidableInstances / IncoherentInstances, couldn't there be a ConsiderInstanceContexts when "I know what I am doing"?
This breaks the open-world assumption. Assume:
class B1 a
class B2 a
class T a
If we allow constraints to disambiguate instances, we may write
instance B1 a => T a
instance B2 a => T a
And may write
instance B1 Int
Now, if I have
f :: T a => a
Then f :: Int works. But, the open world assumption says that, once something works, adding more instances cannot break it. Our new system doesn't obey:
instance B2 Int
will make f :: Int ambiguous. Which implementation of T should be used?
Another way to state this is that you've broken coherence. For typeclasses to be coherent means that there is only one way to satisfy a given constraint. In normal Haskell, a constraint c has only one implementation. Even with overlapping instances, coherence generally holds true. The idea is that instance T a and instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} T Int do not break coherence, because GHC can't be tricked into using the former instance in a place where the latter would do. (You can trick it with orphans, but you shouldn't.) Coherence, at least to me, seems somewhat desirable. Typeclass usage is "hidden", in some sense, and it makes sense to enforce that it be unambiguous. You can also break coherence with IncoherentInstances and/or unsafeCoerce, but, y'know.
In a category theoretic way, the category Constraint is thin: there is at most one instance/arrow from one Constraint to another. We first construct two arrows a : () => B1 Int and b : () => B2 Int, and then we break thinness by adding new arrows x_Int : B1 Int => T Int, y_Int : B2 Int => T Int such that x_Int . a and y_Int . b are both arrows () => T Int that are not identical. Diamond problem, anyone?
This does not answer you question as to why this is the case. Note, however, that you can always define a newtype wrapper to disambiguate between the two instances:
newtype FooWrapper a = FooWrapper a
newtype XyyWrapper a = XyyWrapper a
instance (Foo a) => Bar (FooWrapper a)
instance (Xyy a) => Bar (XyyWrapper a)
This has the added advantage that by passing around either a FooWrapper or a XyyWrapper you explicitly control which of the two instances you'd like to use if your a happens to satisfy both.
Classes are a bit weird. The original idea (which still pretty much works) is a sort of syntactic sugar around what would otherwise be data statements. For example you can imagine:
data Num a = Num {plus :: a -> a -> a, ... , fromInt :: Integer -> a}
numInteger :: Num Integer
numInteger = Num (+) ... id
then you can write functions which have e.g. type:
test :: Num x -> x -> x -> x -> x
test lib a b c = a + b * (abs (c + b))
where (+) = plus lib
(*) = times lib
abs = absoluteValue lib
So the idea is "we're going to automatically derive all of this library code." The question is, how do we find the library that we want? It's easy if we have a library of type Num Int, but how do we extend it to "constrained instances" based on functions of type:
fooLib :: Foo x -> Bar x
xyyLib :: Xyy x -> Bar x
The present solution in Haskell is to do a type-pattern-match on the output-types of those functions and propagate the inputs to the resulting declaration. But when there's two outputs of the same type, we would need a combinator which merges these into:
eitherLib :: Either (Foo x) (Xyy x) -> Bar x
and basically the problem is that there is no good constraint-combinator of this kind right now. That's your objection.
Well, that's true, but there are ways to achieve something morally similar in practice. Suppose we define some functions with types:
data F
data X
foobar'lib :: Foo x -> Bar' x F
xyybar'lib :: Xyy x -> Bar' x X
bar'barlib :: Bar' x y -> Bar x
Clearly the y is a sort of "phantom type" threaded through all of this, but it remains powerful because given that we want a Bar x we will propagate the need for a Bar' x y and given the need for the Bar' x y we will generate either a Bar' x X or a Bar' x y. So with phantom types and multi-parameter type classes, we get the result we want.
More info: https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/AdvancedOverlap
Adding backtracking would make instance resolution require exponential time, in the worst case.
Essentially, instances become logical statements of the form
P(x) => R(f(x)) /\ Q(x) => R(f(x))
which is equivalent to
(P(x) \/ Q(x)) => R(f(x))
Computationally, the cost of this check is (in the worst case)
c_R(n) = c_P(n-1) + c_Q(n-1)
assuming P and Q have similar costs
c_R(n) = 2 * c_PQ(n-1)
which leads to exponential growth.
To avoid this issue, it is important to have fast ways to choose a branch, i.e. to have clauses of the form
((fastP(x) /\ P(x)) \/ (fastQ(x) /\ Q(x))) => R(f(x))
where fastP and fastQ are computable in constant time, and are incompatible so that at most one branch needs to be visited.
Haskell decided that this "fast check" is head compatibility (hence disregarding contexts). It could use other fast checks, of course -- it's a design decision.
Omitting function arguments is a nice tool for concise Haskell code.
h :: String -> Int
h = (4 +) . length
What about omitting data constructor arguments in case statements. The following code might be considered a little grungy, where s and i are the final arguments in A and B but are repeated as the final arguments in the body of each case match.
f :: Foo -> Int
f = \case
A s -> 4 + length s
B i -> 2 + id i
Is there a way to omit such arguments in case pattern matching? For constructors with a large number of arguments, this would radically shorten code width. E.g. the following pseudo code.
g :: Foo -> Int
g = \case
{- match `A` constructor -> function application to A's arguments -}
A -> (4 +) . length
{- match `B` constructor -> function application to B's arguments -}
B -> (2 +) . id
The GHC extension RecordWildCards lets you concisely bring all the fields of a constructor into scope (of course, this requires you to give names to those fields).
{-# LANGUAGE LambdaCase, RecordWildCards #-}
data Foo = Foo {field1, field2 :: Int} | Bar {field1 :: Int}
baz = \case
Foo{..} -> 4 + field2
Bar{..} -> 2 + field1
-- plus it also "sucks in" fields from a scope
mkBar400 = let field1 = 400 in Bar{..}
`
You can always refactor case statements on constructors into a single function so that from then on you only pass your concise function definitions as arguments to these specific functions. Allow me to illustrate.
Consider the Maybe a datatype:
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
Should you now need to define a function f :: Maybe a -> b (for some fixed b and perhaps also a), instead of writing it like
f Nothing = this
f (Just x) = that x
you could start by first defining a function
maybe f _ Nothing = f
maybe _ g (Just x) = g x
and then f can by defined as maybe this that. Pretty much as what happens with all the familiar recursion patterns.
This way you're effectively refactoring out case statements. The code gets arguably cleaner and it does not require language extensions.