For my own understanding, I want to define a function in Haskell that takes two arguments- either both Integers, or both Chars. It does some trivial examination of the arguments, like so:
foo 1 2 = 1
foo 2 1 = 0
foo 'a' 'b' = -1
foo _ _ = -10
This I know won't compile, because it doesn't know whether its args are of type Num or Char. But I can't make its arguments polymorphic, like:
foo :: a -> a -> Int
Because then we are saying it must be a Char (or Int) in the body.
Is it possible to do this in Haskell? I thought of maybe creating a custom type? Something like:
data Bar = Int | Char
foo :: Bar -> Bar -> Int
But I don't think this is valid either. In general, I'm confused about if there's a middle ground between a function in Haskell being either explicitly of ONE type, or polymorphic to a typeclass, prohibiting any usage of a specific type in the function body.
You can use the Either data type to store two different types. Something like this should work:
foo :: Either (Int, Int) (Char, Char) -> Int
foo (Right x) = 3
foo (Left y) = fst y
So, for it's Left data constructor you pass two Int to it and for it's Right constructor you pass two Char to it. Another way would be to define your own algebric data type like this:
data MyIntChar = MyInt (Int, Int) | MyChar (Char, Char) deriving (Show)
If you observe, then you can see that the above type is isomorphic to Either data type.
I'm not sure I would necessarily recommend using typeclasses for this, but they do make something like this possible at least.
class Foo a where
foo :: a -> a -> Int
instance Foo Int where
foo 1 2 = 1
foo 2 1 = 0
foo _ _ = -10
instance Foo Char where
foo 'a' 'b' = -1
foo _ _ = -10
You can do
type Bar = Either Int Char
foo :: Bar -> Bar -> Int
foo (Left 1) (Left 2) = 1
foo (Right 'a') (Right 'b') = -1
foo (Left 3) (Right 'q') = 42
foo _ _ = 10
and things like that - the Either data type is precisely for mixing two types together. You can roll your own similar type like
data Quux = AnInt Int | AChar Char | ThreeBools Bool Bool Bool
It's called an Algebraic Data Type.
(I struggle to think of circumstances when it's useful to mix specifically characters and integers together - mainly it's very helpful to know where your data is and what type it is.)
That said, I write algebraic data types a lot, but I give them meaningful names that represent actual things rather than just putting random stuff together because I don't like to be specific. Being very specific or completely general is useful. In between there are typeclasses like Eq. You can have a function with type Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool which means it has type a -> [a] -> Bool for any type that has == defined, and I leave it open for people to use it for data types I never thought of as long as they define an equality function.
Related
There is an easier way to call function test with value x than using case expression?
data FooBar = Foo Int | Bar String
test :: Maybe Int -> Bool -- Int from Foo constructor
x :: FooBar
One easier way is to define a helper to get you part of the way there:
data FooBar = Foo Int | Bar String
foo :: FooBar -> Maybe Int
foo (Foo x) = Just x
foo _ = Nothing
test :: Maybe Int -> Bool
x :: FooBar
result :: Bool
result = test . foo $ x
If you're the one defining test, you could also just define it differently to make things easier on yourself:
test' :: FooBar -> Bool
test' (Foo x) = (some logic)
test' _ = (the default value)
There is a neat concept called a "prism" that models this general concept -- extracting pieces of data from sum types -- elegantly. But they're... kind of hard to understand, and whether or not they can be considered "idiomatic" is pretty controversial.
You could use guards or pattern matching in the functions you are handing a FooBar as an argument.
The data and type keywords always confuse me.
I want to know what is the difference between data and type and how to use them.
type declares a type synonym. A type synonym is a new name for an existing type. For example, this is how String is defined in the standard library:
type String = [Char]
String is another name for a list of Chars. GHC will replace all usages of String in your program with [Char] at compile-time.
To be clear, a String literally is a list of Chars. It's just an alias. You can use all the standard list functions on String values:
-- length :: [a] -> Int
ghci> length "haskell"
7
-- reverse :: [a] -> [a]
ghci> reverse "functional"
"lanoitcnuf"
data declares a new data type, which, unlike a type synonym, is different from any other type. Data types have a number of constructors defining the possible cases of your type. For example, this is how Bool is defined in the standard library:
data Bool = False | True
A Bool value can be either True or False. Data types support pattern matching, allowing you to perform a runtime case-analysis on a value of a data type.
yesno :: Bool -> String
yesno True = "yes"
yesno False = "no"
data types can have multiple constructors (as with Bool), can be parameterised by other types, can contain other types inside them, and can recursively refer to themselves. Here's a model of exceptions which demonstrates this; an Error a contains an error message of type a, and possibly the error which caused it.
data Error a = Error { value :: a, cause :: Maybe (Error a) }
type ErrorWithMessage = Error String
myError1, myError2 :: ErrorWithMessage
myError1 = Error "woops" Nothing
myError2 = Error "myError1 was thrown" (Just myError1)
It's important to realise that data declares a new type which is apart from any other type in the system. If String had been declared as a data type containing a list of Chars (rather than a type synonym), you wouldn't be able to use any list functions on it.
data String = MkString [Char]
myString = MkString ['h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o']
myReversedString = reverse myString -- type error
There's one more variety of type declaration: newtype. This works rather like a data declaration - it introduces a new data type separate from any other type, and can be pattern matched - except you are restricted to a single constructor with a single field. In other words, a newtype is a data type which wraps up an existing type.
The important difference is the cost of a newtype: the compiler promises that a newtype is represented in the same way as the type it wraps. There's no runtime cost to packing or unpacking a newtype. This makes newtypes useful for making administrative (rather than structural) distinctions between values.
newtypes interact well with type classes. For example, consider Monoid, the class of types with a way to combine elements (mappend) and a special 'empty' element (mempty). Int can be made into a Monoid in many ways, including addition with 0 and multiplication with 1. How can we choose which one to use for a possible Monoid instance of Int? It's better not to express a preference, and use newtypes to enable either usage with no runtime cost. Paraphrasing the standard library:
-- introduce a type Sum with a constructor Sum which wraps an Int, and an extractor getSum which gives you back the Int
newtype Sum = Sum { getSum :: Int }
instance Monoid Sum where
(Sum x) `mappend` (Sum y) = Sum (x + y)
mempty = Sum 0
newtype Product = Product { getProduct :: Int }
instance Monoid Product where
(Product x) `mappend` (Product y) = Product (x * y)
mempty = Product 1
With data you create new datatype and declare a constructor for it:
data NewData = NewDataConstructor
With type you define just an alias:
type MyChar = Char
In the type case you can pass value of MyChar type to function expecting a Char and vice versa, but you can't do this for data MyChar = MyChar Char.
type works just like let: it allows you to give a re-usable name to something, but that something will always work just as if you had inlined the definition. So
type ℝ = Double
f :: ℝ -> ℝ -> ℝ
f x y = let x2 = x^2
in x2 + y
behaves exactly the same way as
f' :: Double -> Double -> Double
f' x y = x^2 + y
as in: you can anywhere in your code replace f with f' and vice versa; nothing would change.
OTOH, both data and newtype create an opaque abstraction. They are more like a class constructor in OO: even though some value is implemented simply in terms of a single number, it doesn't necessarily behave like such a number. For instance,
newtype Logscaledℝ = LogScaledℝ { getLogscaled :: Double }
instance Num LogScaledℝ where
LogScaledℝ a + LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a*b
LogScaledℝ a - LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a/b
LogScaledℝ a * LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a**b
Here, although Logscaledℝ is data-wise still just a Double number, it clearly behaves different from Double.
I thought it would be really easy to find the answer online but I had no luck with that. Which means that my question should't be a question but I am sure more people new to Haskell might come up with the same question.
So how do I check if a value is of a certain type?
I have the following data type defined and I wanna check whether the input on a function is of a specific type.
data MyType a = MyInt Int | MyOther a (MyType a)
First, your data declaration will not work. Let's assume you're using this type:
data MyType a = MyInt Int | MyOther a (MyType a)
then you can have functions that take a MyType a, some specific MyType (e.g. MyType Int) or a constrained MyType (e.g. Num a => MyType a).
If you want to know whether you have a MyInt or a MyOther, you can simply use pattern matching:
whichAmI :: MyType a -> String
whichAmI (MyInt i) = "I'm an Int with value " ++ show i
whichAmI (MyOther _ _) = "I'm something else"
When you want to know if the type in the parameter a is a Num, or what type it is, you will run into a fundamental Haskell limitation. Haskell is statically typed so there is no such dynamic checking of what the a in MyType a is.
The solution is to limit your function if you need a certain type of a. For example we can have:
mySum :: Num a => MyType a -> a
mySum (MyInt i) = fromIntegral i
mySum (MyOther n m) = n + mySum m
or we can have a function that only works if a is a Bool:
trueOrGE10 :: MyType Bool -> Bool
trueOrGE10 (MyInt i) = i >= 10
trueOrGE10 (MyOther b _) = b
As with all Haskell code, it will need to be possible to determine at compile-time whether a particular expression you put into one of these functions has the right type.
I need a function which works like:
some :: (Int, Maybe Int) -> Int
some a b
| b == Nothing = 0
| otherwise = a + b
Use cases:
some (2,Just 1)
some (3,Nothing)
map some [(2, Just 1), (3,Nothing)]
But my code raise the error:
The equation(s) for `some' have two arguments,
but its type `(Int, Maybe Int) -> Int' has only one
I don't understand it.
Thanks in advance.
When you write
foo x y = ...
That is notation for a curried function, with a type like:
foo :: a -> b -> c
You have declared your function to expect a tuple, so you must write it:
some :: (Int, Maybe Int) -> Int
some (x, y) = ...
But Haskell convention is usually to take arguments in the former curried form. Seeing funcitons take tuples as arguments is very rare.
For the other part of your question, you probably want to express it with pattern matching. You could say:
foo :: Maybe Int -> Int
foo Nothing = 0
foo (Just x) = x + 1
Generalizing that to the OP's question is left as an exercise for the reader.
Your error doesn't come from a misunderstanding of Maybe: The type signature of some indicates that it takes a pair (Int, Maybe Int), while in your definition you provide it two arguments. The definition should thus begin with some (a,b) to match the type signature.
One way to fix the problem (which is also a bit more idiomatic and uses pattern matching) is:
some :: (Int, Maybe Int) -> Int
some (a, Nothing) = a
some (a, Just b) = a + b
It's also worth noting that unless you have a really good reason for using a tuple as input, you should probably not do so. If your signature were instead some :: Int -> Maybe Int -> Int, you'd have a function of two arguments, which can be curried. Then you'd write something like
some :: Int -> Maybe Int -> Int
some a Nothing = a
some a (Just b) = a + b
Also, you might want to add the following immediate generalization: All Num types are additive, so you might aswell do
some :: (Num n) => n -> Maybe n -> n
some a Nothing = a
some a (Just b) = a + b
(I've violated the common practice of using a, b, c... for type variables so as not to confuse the OP since he binds a and b to the arguments of some).
Suppose that I have two data types Foo and Bar. Foo has fields x and y. Bar has fields x and z. I want to be able to write a function that takes either a Foo or a Bar as a parameter, extracts the x value, performs some calculation on it, and then returns a new Foo or Bar with the x value set accordingly.
Here is one approach:
class HasX a where
getX :: a -> Int
setX :: a -> Int -> a
data Foo = Foo Int Int deriving Show
instance HasX Foo where
getX (Foo x _) = x
setX (Foo _ y) val = Foo val y
getY (Foo _ z) = z
setY (Foo x _) val = Foo x val
data Bar = Bar Int Int deriving Show
instance HasX Bar where
getX (Bar x _) = x
setX (Bar _ z) val = Bar val z
getZ (Bar _ z) = z
setZ (Bar x _) val = Bar x val
modifyX :: (HasX a) => a -> a
modifyX hasX = setX hasX $ getX hasX + 5
The problem is that all those getters and setters are painful to write, especially if I replace Foo and Bar with real-world data types that have lots of fields.
Haskell's record syntax gives a much nicer way of defining these records. But, if I try to define the records like this
data Foo = Foo {x :: Int, y :: Int} deriving Show
data Bar = Foo {x :: Int, z :: Int} deriving Show
I'll get an error saying that x is defined multiple times. And, I'm not seeing any way to make these part of a type class so that I can pass them to modifyX.
Is there a nice clean way of solving this problem, or am I stuck with defining my own getters and setters? Put another way, is there a way of connecting the functions created by record syntax up with type classes (both the getters and setters)?
EDIT
Here's the real problem I'm trying to solve. I'm writing a series of related programs that all use System.Console.GetOpt to parse their command-line options. There will be a lot of command-line options that are common across these programs, but some of the programs may have extra options. I'd like each program to be able to define a record containing all of its option values. I then start with a default record value that is then transformed through a StateT monad and GetOpt to get a final record reflecting the command-line arguments. For a single program, this approach works really well, but I'm trying to find a way to re-use code across all of the programs.
You want extensible records which, I gather, is one of the most talked about topics in Haskell. It appears that there is not currently much consensus on how to implement it.
In your case it seems like maybe instead of an ordinary record you could use a heterogeneous list like those implemented in HList.
Then again, it seems you only have two levels here: common and program. So maybe you should just define a common record type for the common options and a program-specific record type for each program, and use StateT on a tuple of those types. For the common stuff you can add aliases that compose fst with the common accessors so it's invisible to callers.
You could use code such as
data Foo = Foo { fooX :: Int, fooY :: Int } deriving (Show)
data Bar = Bar { barX :: Int, barZ :: Int } deriving (Show)
instance HasX Foo where
getX = fooX
setX r x' = r { fooX = x' }
instance HasX Bar where
getX = barX
setX r x' = r { barX = x' }
What are you modeling in your code? If we knew more about the problem, we could suggest something less awkward than this object-oriented design shoehorned into a functional language.
Seems to me like a job for generics. If you could tag your Int with different newtypes, then you would be able to write (with uniplate, module PlateData):
data Foo = Foo Something Another deriving (Data,Typeable)
data Bar = Bar Another Thing deriving (Data, Typerable)
data Opts = F Foo | B Bar
newtype Something = S Int
newtype Another = A Int
newtype Thing = T Int
getAnothers opts = [ x | A x <- universeBi opts ]
This would extract all Another's from anywhere inside the Opts.
Modification is possible as well.
If you make the types instances of Foldable you get a toList function that you can use as the basis of your accessor.
If Foldable doesn't by you anything, then maybe the right approach is to define the interface you want as a type class and figure out a good way to autogenerate the derived values.
Perhaps by deriving from doing
deriving(Data)
you could use gmap combinators to base your access off.