Related
Ive been trying to make a function for displaying the reduced data type of simple lambda calculus given a context. For this I need to compare a type of format
a :-> b
to a type of format
a
I havent been able to find a way of partially comparing the types of data like this, i.e. checking whether the type of one thing contains the type of another. If there's a simple way to do this I cant seem to find it online.
These types are generic and can be anything (e.g. a could be (Foo :-> Bar) :-> Int or anything really, which is why I cant just use a base type)
I'm not 100% clear on exactly what you want, but suppose it were like this:
data Type baseTypes = Type baseTypes :-> Type baseTypes | Base baseTypes
Then you could write something like:
funCallCompatible :: Eq b => Type b -> Type b -> Maybe (Type b)
funCallCompatible (a :-> b) a' = if a == a' then Just b else Nothing
funCallCompatible _ _ = Nothing
Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
For a more advanced treatment of typechecking, you'll want to read about unification. Google should help get you started. I can also strongly recommend the book Types and Programming Languages.
Programming in Haskell by Hutton says:
A type that contains one or more type variables is called polymorphic.
Which is a polymorphic type: a type or a set of types?
Is a polymorphic type with a concrete type substituting its type variable a type?
Is a polymorphic type with different concrete types substituting its type variable considered the same or different types?
Is a polymorphic type with a concrete type substituting its type variable a type?
That's the point, yes. However, you need to be careful. Consider:
id :: a -> a
That's polymorphic. You can substitute a := Int and get Int -> Int, and a := Float -> Float and get (Float -> Float) -> Float -> Float. However, you cannot say a := Maybe and get id :: Maybe -> Maybe. That just doesn't make sense. Instead, we have to require that you can only substitute concrete types like Int and Maybe Float for a, not abstract ones like Maybe. This is handled with the kind system. This is not too important for your question, so I'll just summarize. Int and Float and Maybe Float are all concrete types (that is, they have values), so we say that they have type Type (the type of a type is often called its kind). Maybe is a function that takes a concrete type as an argument and returns a new concrete type, so we say Maybe :: Type -> Type. In the type a -> a, we say the type variable a must have type Type, so now the substitutions a := Int, a := String, etc. are allowed, while stuff like a := Maybe isn't.
Is a polymorphic type with different concrete types substituting its type variable considered the same or different types?
No. Back to a -> a: a := Int gives Int -> Int, but a := Float gives Float -> Float. Not the same.
Which is a polymorphic type: a type or a set of types?
Now that's a loaded question. You can skip to the TL;DR at the end, but the question of "what is a polymorphic type" is actually really confusing in Haskell, so here's a wall of text.
There are two ways to see it. Haskell started with one, then moved to the other, and now we have a ton of old literature referring to the old way, so the syntax of the modern system tries to maintain compatibility. It's a bit of a hot mess. Consider
id x = x
What is the type of id? One point of view is that id :: Int -> Int, and also id :: Float -> Float, and also id :: (Int -> Int) -> Int -> Int, ad infinitum, all simultaneously. This infinite family of types can be summed up with one polymorphic type, id :: a -> a. This point of view gives you the Hindley-Milner type system. This is not how modern GHC Haskell works, but this system is what Haskell was based on at its creation.
In Hindley-Milner, there is a hard line between polymorphic types and monomorphic types, and the union of these two groups gives you "types" in general. It's not really fair to say that, in HM, polymorphic types (in HM jargon, "polytypes") are types. You can't take polytypes as arguments, or return them from functions, or place them in a list. Instead, polytypes are only templates for monotypes. If you squint, in HM, a polymorphic type can be seen as a set of those monotypes that fit the schema.
Modern Haskell is built on System F (plus extensions). In System F,
id = \x -> x -- rewriting the example
is not a complete definition. Therefore we can't even think about giving it a type. Every lambda-bound variable needs a type annotation, but x has no annotation. Worse, we can't even decide on one: \(x :: Int) -> x is just as good as \(x :: Float) -> x. In System F, what we do is we write
id = /\(a :: Type) -> \(x :: a) -> x
using /\ to represent Λ (upper-case lambda) much as we use \ to represent λ.
id is a function taking two arguments. The first argument is a Type, named a. The second argument is an a. The result is also an a. The type signature is:
id :: forall (a :: Type). a -> a
forall is a new kind of function arrow, basically. Note that it provides a binder for a. In HM, when we said id :: a -> a, we didn't really define what a was. It was a fresh, global variable. By convention, more than anything else, that variable is not used anywhere else (otherwise the Generalization rule doesn't apply and everything breaks down). If I had written e.g. inject :: a -> Maybe a, afterwards, the textual occurrences of a would be referring to a new global entity, different from the one in id. In System F, the a in forall a. a -> a actually has scope. It's a "local variable" available only for use underneath that forall. The a in inject :: forall a. a -> Maybe a may or may not be the "same" a; it doesn't matter, because we have actual scoping rules that keep everything from falling apart.
Because System F has hygienic scoping rules for type variables, polymorphic types are allowed to do everything other types can do. You can take them as arguments
runCont :: forall (a :: Type). (forall (r :: Type). (a -> r) -> r) -> a
runCons a f = f a (id a) -- omitting type signatures; you can fill them in
You put them in data constructors
newtype Yoneda f a = Yoneda (forall b. (a -> b) -> f b)
You can place them in polymorphic containers:
type Bool = forall a. a -> a -> a
true, false :: Bool
true a t f = t
false a t f = f
thueMorse :: [Bool]
thueMorse = false : true : true : false : _etc
There's an important difference from HM. In HM, if something has polymorphic type, it also has, simultaneously, an infinity of monomorphic types. In System F, a thing can only have one type. id = /\a -> \(x :: a) -> x has type forall a. a -> a, not Int -> Int or Float -> Float. In order to get an Int -> Int out of id, you have to actually give it an argument: id Int :: Int -> Int, and id Float :: Float -> Float.
Haskell is not System F, however. System F is closer to what GHC calls Core, which is an internal language that GHC compiles Haskell to—basically Haskell without any syntax sugar. Haskell is a Hindley-Milner flavored veneer on top of a System F core. In Haskell, nominally a polymorphic type is a type. They do not act like sets of types. However, polymorphic types are still second class. Haskell doesn't let you actually type forall without -XExplicitForalls. It emulates Hindley-Milner's wonky implicit global variable creation by inserting foralls in certain places. The places where it does so are changed by -XScopedTypeVariables. You can't take polymorphic arguments or have polymorphic fields unless you enable -XRankNTypes. You cannot say things like [forall a. a -> a -> a], nor can you say id (forall a. a -> a -> a) :: (forall a. a -> a -> a) -> (forall a. a -> a -> a)—you must define e.g. newtype Bool = Bool { ifThenElse :: forall a. a -> a -> a } to wrap the polymorphism under something monomorphic. You cannot explicitly give type arguments unless you enable -XTypeApplications, and then you can write id #Int :: Int -> Int. You cannot write type lambdas (/\), period; instead, they are inserted implicitly whenever possible. If you define id :: forall a. a -> a, then you cannot even write id in Haskell. It will always be implicitly expanded to an application, id #_.
TL;DR: In Haskell, a polymorphic type is a type. It's not treated as a set of types, or a rule/schema for types, or whatever. However, due to historical reasons, they are treated as second class citizens. By default, it looks like they are treated as mere sets of types, if you squint a bit. Most restrictions on them can be lifted with suitable language extensions, at which point they look more like "just types". The one remaining big restriction (no impredicative instantiations allowed) is rather fundamental and cannot be erased, but that's fine because there's a workaround.
There is some nuance in the word "type" here. Values have concrete types, which cannot be polymorphic. Expressions, on the other hand, have general types, which can be polymorphic. If you're thinking of types for values, then a polymorphic type can be thought of loosely as defining sets of possible concrete types. (At least first-order polymorphic types! Higher-order polymorphism breaks this intuition.) But that's not always a particularly useful way of thinking, and it's not a sufficient definition. It doesn't capture which sets of types can be described in this way (and related notions like parametricity.)
It's a good observation, though, that the same word, "type", is used in these two related, but different, ways.
EDIT: The answer below turns out not to answer the question. The difference is a subtle mistake in terminology: types like Maybe and [] are higher-kinded, whereas types like forall a. a -> a and forall a. Maybe a are polymorphic. The answer below relates to higher-kinded types, but the question was asked about polymorphic types. I’m still leaving this answer up in case it helps anyone else, but I realise now it’s not really an answer to the question.
I would argue that a polymorphic higher-kinded type is closer to a set of types. For instance, you could see Maybe as the set {Maybe Int, Maybe Bool, …}.
However, strictly speaking, this is a bit misleading. To address this in more detail, we need to learn about kinds. Similarly to how types describe values, we say that kinds describe types. The idea is:
A concrete type (that is, one which has values) has a kind of *. Examples include Bool, Char, Int and Maybe String, which all have type *. This is denoted e.g. Bool :: *. Note that functions such as Int -> String also have kind *, as these are concrete types which can contain values such as show!
A type with a type parameter has a kind containing arrows. For instance, in the same way that id :: a -> a, we can say that Maybe :: * -> *, since Maybe takes a concrete type as an argument (such as Int), and produces a concrete type as a result (such as Maybe Int). Something like a -> a also has kind * -> *, since it has one type parameter (a) and produces a concrete result (a -> a). You can get more complex kinds as well: for instance, data Foo f x = FooConstr (f x x) has kind Foo :: (* -> * -> *) -> * -> *. (Can you see why?)
(If the above explanation doesn’t make sense, the Learn You a Haskell book has a great section on kinds as well.)
So now we can answer your questions properly:
Which is a polymorphic higher-kinded type: a type or a set of types?
Neither: a polymorphic higher-kinded type is a type-level function, as indicated by the arrows in its kind. For instance, Maybe :: * -> * is a type-level function which converts e.g. Int → Maybe Int, Bool → Maybe Bool etc.
Is a polymorphic higher-kinded type with a concrete type substituting its type variable a type?
Yes, when your polymorphic higher-kinded type has a kind * -> * (i.e. it has one type parameter, which accepts a concrete type). When you apply a concrete type Conc :: * to a type Poly :: * -> *, it’s just function application, as detailed above, with the result being Poly Conc :: * i.e. a concrete type.
Is a polymorphic higher-kinded type with different concrete types substituting its type variable considered the same or different types?
This question is a bit out of place, as it doesn’t have anything to do with kinds. The answer is definitely no: two types like Maybe Int and Maybe Bool are not the same. Nothing may be a member of both types, but only the former contains a value Just 4, and only the latter contains a value Just False.
On the other hand, it is possible to have two different substitutions where the resulting types are isomorphic. (An isomorphism is where two types are different, but equivalent in some way. For instance, (a, b) and (b, a) are isomorphic, despite being the same type. The formal condition is that two types p,q are isomorphic when you can write two inverse functions p -> q and q -> p.)
One example of this is Const:
data Const a b = Const { getConst :: a }
This type just ignores its second type parameter; as a result, two types like Const Int Char and Const Int Bool are isomorphic. However, they are not the same type: if you make a value of type Const Int Char, but then use it as something of type Const Int Bool, this will result in a type error. This sort of functionality is incredibly useful, as it means you can ‘tag’ a type a using Const a tag, then use the tag as a marker of information on the type level.
This is perhaps a very basic question, but, nevertheless, it does not seem to have been covered on SO.
I recently took up Haskell and up until now type declarations consisted of mostly the following:
Int
Bool
Float
etc, etc
Now I am getting into lists and I am seeing type declarations that use a, such as in the following function that iterates through an associative list:
contains :: Int -> [(Int,a)] -> [a]
contains x list = [values | (key,values)<-list, x==key]
Can someone provide an explanation as to what this a is, and how it works? From observation it seems to represent every type. Does this mean I can input any list of any type as parameter?
Yes, you're right, it represents "any type" - the restriction being that all as in a given type signature must resolve to the same type. So you can input a list of any type, but when you use contains to look up a value in the list, the value you look up must be the same type as the elements of the list - which makes sense of course.
In Haskell, uppercase types are concrete types (Int, Bool) or type constructors (Maybe, Either) while lowercase types are type variables. A function is implicitly generic in all the type variables it uses, so this:
contains :: Int -> [(Int, a)] -> [a]
Is shorthand for this*:
contains :: forall a. Int -> [(Int, a)] -> [a]
In C++, forall is spelled template:
template<typename a>
list<a> contains(int, list<pair<int, a>>);
In Java and C#, it’s spelled with angle brackets:
list<a> contains<a>(int, list<pair<int, a>>);
Of course, in these languages, generic type variables are often called T, U, V, while in Haskell they’re often called a, b, c. It’s just a difference of convention.
* This syntax is enabled by the -XExplicitForAll flag in GHC, as well as other extensions.
I'm pretty new to Haskell and I have created a high-order function:
forAll f ls ls2 = all (`f` ls) ls2
I need to specify the type, but I have doubts with the type of the function f:
GHCi says it's:
forAll :: (a -> t -> Bool) -> t -> [a] -> Bool
But shouldn't it be something like this?
forAll :: (a -> t) -> t -> [a] -> Bool
Thanks.
No, since all has the type
all :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
f has to return Bool. Since
(`f` ls)
(\a -> a `f` ls)
flip f ls
f must take an element of the list, ls, and produce a Bool. Making it's type
f :: a -> t -> Bool
Where ls :: t and ls2 :: [a].
Let's examine the type you suspect this function must take.
The type (a -> t) means that given some a we can produce a t. We have some as in our list of as, [a] and so we can presumably make a bunch of ts with a type like [t]. Further, we have yet another t passed in which we can stick in that other bunch of [t]s as well.
Now, I call these as and ts because we really don't know anything about what their actual types are. That said, we do know what our goal is: we must produce a Bool.
So somewhere inside our function must be a method of converting a bunch of ts, like [t], into a Bool. We could do this with something like length ts > 3 but I doubt that's what you're looking for.
The function type that GHC provides you looks a bit different. It states that we have a way of taking an a and a t together to a Bool (the type is (a -> t -> Bool)). Since we have a list of as we can feed each one of them one after another into this function so long as we have a source of ts. Since we have exactly one t coming in, we'll need to use it each time. Altogether that gives us a bunch of Bools, a [Bool] even. This is exactly the kind of thing we're looking for, though, as we'd like to condense that list of [Bool] to a single Bool using all.
This kind of narrative of types I've laid out—where we talk about functions having and wanting values, like a game of give and take between you and your program—is a pretty common method of reasoning about the types of your programs. You can often get quite far with this kind of exploration and provide yourself a lot of justification for the types of programs you've constructed.
Ultimately, GHC is always going to be "right" about the type of the particular values you ask it about—that's the advantage of an Hindley Milner type system. Try to check the types of functions that GHC infers often and see whether GHC has deduced some detail of the type narrative that you've missed.
(By the way, that narrative I mention is called, perhaps obviously, "game semantics of programs" and it also shows up in proofs and logic. There's a much deeper tie there if you decide to follow it.)
I am not really proficient in Haskell, so this might be a very easy question.
What language limitation do Rank2Types solve? Don't functions in Haskell already support polymorphic arguments?
It's hard to understand higher-rank polymorphism unless you study System F directly, because Haskell is designed to hide the details of that from you in the interest of simplicity.
But basically, the rough idea is that polymorphic types don't really have the a -> b form that they do in Haskell; in reality, they look like this, always with explicit quantifiers:
id :: ∀a.a → a
id = Λt.λx:t.x
If you don't know the "∀" symbol, it's read as "for all"; ∀x.dog(x) means "for all x, x is a dog." "Λ" is capital lambda, used for abstracting over type parameters; what the second line says is that id is a function that takes a type t, and then returns a function that's parametrized by that type.
You see, in System F, you can't just apply a function like that id to a value right away; first you need to apply the Λ-function to a type in order to get a λ-function that you apply to a value. So for example:
(Λt.λx:t.x) Int 5 = (λx:Int.x) 5
= 5
Standard Haskell (i.e., Haskell 98 and 2010) simplifies this for you by not having any of these type quantifiers, capital lambdas and type applications, but behind the scenes GHC puts them in when it analyzes the program for compilation. (This is all compile-time stuff, I believe, with no runtime overhead.)
But Haskell's automatic handling of this means that it assumes that "∀" never appears on the left-hand branch of a function ("→") type. Rank2Types and RankNTypes turn off those restrictions and allow you to override Haskell's default rules for where to insert forall.
Why would you want to do this? Because the full, unrestricted System F is hella powerful, and it can do a lot of cool stuff. For example, type hiding and modularity can be implemented using higher-rank types. Take for example a plain old function of the following rank-1 type (to set the scene):
f :: ∀r.∀a.((a → r) → a → r) → r
To use f, the caller first must choose what types to use for r and a, then supply an argument of the resulting type. So you could pick r = Int and a = String:
f Int String :: ((String → Int) → String → Int) → Int
But now compare that to the following higher-rank type:
f' :: ∀r.(∀a.(a → r) → a → r) → r
How does a function of this type work? Well, to use it, first you specify which type to use for r. Say we pick Int:
f' Int :: (∀a.(a → Int) → a → Int) → Int
But now the ∀a is inside the function arrow, so you can't pick what type to use for a; you must apply f' Int to a Λ-function of the appropriate type. This means that the implementation of f' gets to pick what type to use for a, not the caller of f'. Without higher-rank types, on the contrary, the caller always picks the types.
What is this useful for? Well, for many things actually, but one idea is that you can use this to model things like object-oriented programming, where "objects" bundle some hidden data together with some methods that work on the hidden data. So for example, an object with two methods—one that returns an Int and another that returns a String, could be implemented with this type:
myObject :: ∀r.(∀a.(a → Int, a -> String) → a → r) → r
How does this work? The object is implemented as a function that has some internal data of hidden type a. To actually use the object, its clients pass in a "callback" function that the object will call with the two methods. For example:
myObject String (Λa. λ(length, name):(a → Int, a → String). λobjData:a. name objData)
Here we are, basically, invoking the object's second method, the one whose type is a → String for an unknown a. Well, unknown to myObject's clients; but these clients do know, from the signature, that they will be able to apply either of the two functions to it, and get either an Int or a String.
For an actual Haskell example, below is the code that I wrote when I taught myself RankNTypes. This implements a type called ShowBox which bundles together a value of some hidden type together with its Show class instance. Note that in the example at the bottom, I make a list of ShowBox whose first element was made from a number, and the second from a string. Since the types are hidden by using the higher-rank types, this doesn't violate type checking.
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ImpredicativeTypes #-}
type ShowBox = forall b. (forall a. Show a => a -> b) -> b
mkShowBox :: Show a => a -> ShowBox
mkShowBox x = \k -> k x
-- | This is the key function for using a 'ShowBox'. You pass in
-- a function #k# that will be applied to the contents of the
-- ShowBox. But you don't pick the type of #k#'s argument--the
-- ShowBox does. However, it's restricted to picking a type that
-- implements #Show#, so you know that whatever type it picks, you
-- can use the 'show' function.
runShowBox :: forall b. (forall a. Show a => a -> b) -> ShowBox -> b
-- Expanded type:
--
-- runShowBox
-- :: forall b. (forall a. Show a => a -> b)
-- -> (forall b. (forall a. Show a => a -> b) -> b)
-- -> b
--
runShowBox k box = box k
example :: [ShowBox]
-- example :: [ShowBox] expands to this:
--
-- example :: [forall b. (forall a. Show a => a -> b) -> b]
--
-- Without the annotation the compiler infers the following, which
-- breaks in the definition of 'result' below:
--
-- example :: forall b. [(forall a. Show a => a -> b) -> b]
--
example = [mkShowBox 5, mkShowBox "foo"]
result :: [String]
result = map (runShowBox show) example
PS: for anybody reading this who's wondered how come ExistentialTypes in GHC uses forall, I believe the reason is because it's using this sort of technique behind the scenes.
Do not functions in Haskell already support polymorphic arguments?
They do, but only of rank 1. This means that while you can write a function that takes different types of arguments without this extension, you can't write a function that uses its argument as different types in the same invocation.
For example the following function can't be typed without this extension because g is used with different argument types in the definition of f:
f g = g 1 + g "lala"
Note that it's perfectly possible to pass a polymorphic function as an argument to another function. So something like map id ["a","b","c"] is perfectly legal. But the function may only use it as monomorphic. In the example map uses id as if it had type String -> String. And of course you can also pass a simple monomorphic function of the given type instead of id. Without rank2types there is no way for a function to require that its argument must be a polymorphic function and thus also no way to use it as a polymorphic function.
Luis Casillas's answer gives a lot of great info about what rank 2 types mean, but I'll just expand on one point he didn't cover. Requiring an argument to be polymorphic doesn't just allow it to be used with multiple types; it also restricts what that function can do with its argument(s) and how it can produce its result. That is, it gives the caller less flexibility. Why would you want to do that? I'll start with a simple example:
Suppose we have a data type
data Country = BigEnemy | MediumEnemy | PunyEnemy | TradePartner | Ally | BestAlly
and we want to write a function
f g = launchMissilesAt $ g [BigEnemy, MediumEnemy, PunyEnemy]
that takes a function that's supposed to choose one of the elements of the list it's given and return an IO action launching missiles at that target. We could give f a simple type:
f :: ([Country] -> Country) -> IO ()
The problem is that we could accidentally run
f (\_ -> BestAlly)
and then we'd be in big trouble! Giving f a rank 1 polymorphic type
f :: ([a] -> a) -> IO ()
doesn't help at all, because we choose the type a when we call f, and we just specialize it to Country and use our malicious \_ -> BestAlly again. The solution is to use a rank 2 type:
f :: (forall a . [a] -> a) -> IO ()
Now the function we pass in is required to be polymorphic, so \_ -> BestAlly won't type check! In fact, no function returning an element not in the list it is given will typecheck (although some functions that go into infinite loops or produce errors and therefore never return will do so).
The above is contrived, of course, but a variation on this technique is key to making the ST monad safe.
Higher-rank types aren't as exotic as the other answers have made out. Believe it or not, many object-oriented languages (including Java and C#!) feature them. (Of course, no one in those communities knows them by the scary-sounding name "higher-rank types".)
The example I'm going to give is a textbook implementation of the Visitor pattern, which I use all the time in my daily work. This answer is not intended as an introduction to the visitor pattern; that knowledge is readily available elsewhere.
In this fatuous imaginary HR application, we wish to operate on employees who may be full-time permanent staff or temporary contractors. My preferred variant of the Visitor pattern (and indeed the one which is relevant to RankNTypes) parameterises the visitor's return type.
interface IEmployeeVisitor<T>
{
T Visit(PermanentEmployee e);
T Visit(Contractor c);
}
class XmlVisitor : IEmployeeVisitor<string> { /* ... */ }
class PaymentCalculator : IEmployeeVisitor<int> { /* ... */ }
The point is that a number of visitors with different return types can all operate on the same data. This means IEmployee must express no opinion as to what T ought to be.
interface IEmployee
{
T Accept<T>(IEmployeeVisitor<T> v);
}
class PermanentEmployee : IEmployee
{
// ...
public T Accept<T>(IEmployeeVisitor<T> v)
{
return v.Visit(this);
}
}
class Contractor : IEmployee
{
// ...
public T Accept<T>(IEmployeeVisitor<T> v)
{
return v.Visit(this);
}
}
I wish to draw your attention to the types. Observe that IEmployeeVisitor universally quantifies its return type, whereas IEmployee quantifies it inside its Accept method - that is to say, at a higher rank. Translating clunkily from C# to Haskell:
data IEmployeeVisitor r = IEmployeeVisitor {
visitPermanent :: PermanentEmployee -> r,
visitContractor :: Contractor -> r
}
newtype IEmployee = IEmployee {
accept :: forall r. IEmployeeVisitor r -> r
}
So there you have it. Higher-rank types show up in C# when you write types containing generic methods.
For those familiar with object oriented languages, a higher-rank function is simply a generic function that expects as its argument another generic function.
E.g. in TypeScript you could write:
type WithId<T> = T & { id: number }
type Identifier = <T>(obj: T) => WithId<T>
type Identify = <TObj>(obj: TObj, f: Identifier) => WithId<TObj>
See how the generic function type Identify demands a generic function of the type Identifier? This makes Identify a higher-rank function.