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.
Related
(I'm totally rewriting this question to give it a better focus; you can see the history of changes if you want to see the original.)
Let's say I have two modules:
One module defines the function inverseAndSqrt. What this function actually does is not important; what is important is that it returns none, one, or both of two things in a way that the client can distinguish which one is which;
module Module1 (inverseAndSqrt) where
type TwoOpts a = (Maybe a, Maybe a)
inverseAndSqrt :: Int -> TwoOpts Float
inverseAndSqrt x = (if x /= 0 then Just (1.0/(fromIntegral x)) else Nothing,
if x >= 0 then Just (sqrt $ fromIntegral x) else Nothing)
another module defines other functions depending on inverseAndSqrt and on its type
module Module2 where
import Module1
fun :: (Maybe Float, Maybe Float) -> Float
fun (Just x, Just y) = x + y
fun (Just x, Nothing) = x
fun (Nothing, Just y) = y
exportedFun :: Int -> Float
exportedFun = fun . inverseAndSqrt
What I want to understand from the perspective of design principle is: how should I interface Module1 with other modules (e.g. Module2) in a way that makes it well encapsulated, reusable, etc?
The problems I see are
I could one day decide that I don't want to use a pair to return the two results anymore; I could decide to use a 2 elements list; or another type which is isomorphic (I think this is the right adjective, isn't it?) to a pair; if I do this, all client code will break
Exporting the TwoOpts type synonym doesn't solve anything, as Module1 could still change its implementation thus breaking client code.
Module1 is also forcing the type of the two optionals to be the same, but I'm not sure this is really relevant to this question...
How should I design Module1 (and thus edit Module2 as well) such that the two are not tightly coupled?
One thing I can think of is that maybe I should define a typeclass expressing what "a box with two optional things in it" is, and then Module1 and Module2 would use that as a common interface. But should that be in both module? In either of them? Or in none of them, in a third module? Or maybe such a class/concept is not needed?
I'm not a computer scientist so I'm sure that this question highlights some misunderstanding of mine due to lack of experience and theoretical background. Any help filling the gaps is welcome.
Possible modifications I'd like to support
Related to what chepner suggested in a comment to his answer, at some point I might want to extend the support from 2-tuple things to both 2- and 3-tuple things, having different accessor names for them, suche as get1of2/get2of2 (let's say these are the name we use when we first design Module1) vs get1of3/get2of3/get3of3.
At some point I would also be able to complement this 2-tuple-like type with something else, for instance an optional containing Just the sum¹ of the two main contents only if they are both Justs, or a Nothing if at least one of the two main contents is a Nothing. I guess in this case the internal representation of this class would be something like ((Maybe a, Maybe a), Maybe b) (¹ The sum is really a stupid example, so I've used b here instead of a to be more general than the sum would require).
To me, Haskell design is all type-centric. The design rule for functions is just "use the most general and accurate types that do the job", and the whole problem of design in Haskell is about coming up with the best types for the job.
We would like there to be no "junk" in the types, so that they have exactly one representation for each value you want to denote. E.g. String is a bad representation for numbers, because "0", "0.0", "-0" all mean the same thing, and also because "The Prisoner" is not a number -- it is a valid representation that does not have a valid denotation. If, say for performance reasons, the same denotation can be represented multiple ways, the type's API should make that difference invisible to the user.
So in your case, (Maybe a, Maybe a) is perfect -- it means exactly what you need it to mean. Using something more complicated is unnecessary, and will just complicate matters for the user. At some point whatever you expose will have to be convertible to a Maybe a for the first thing and a Maybe a for the second thing, and there is no extra information than that, so the tuple is perfect. Whether you use a type synonym or not is a matter of style -- I prefer not use synonyms at all and only give types names when I have a more formal abstraction in mind.
Connotation is important. For example, if I had a function for finding the roots of a quadratic polynomial, I probably wouldn't use TwoOpts, even though there are at most two of them. The fact that my return values are all "the same kind of thing" in an intuitive sense makes me prefer a list (or if I'm feeling particularly picky, a Set or Bag), even if the list has at most two elements. I just have it match my best understanding of the domain at the time, so I won't change it unless my understanding of the domain has changed in a significant way, in which case the opportunity to review all its uses is exactly what I want. If you are writing your functions to be as polymorphic as possible, then often you won't need to change anything but the specific moments the meaning is used, the exact moment domain knowledge is required (such as understanding the relationship between TwoOpts and Set). You don't need to "redo the plumbing" if it's made of a sufficiently flexible, polymorphic material.
Supposing you didn't have a clean isomorphism to a standard type like (Maybe a, Maybe a), and you wanted to formalize TwoOpts. The way here is to build an API out of its constructors, combinators, and eliminators. For example:
data TwoOpts a -- abstract, not exposed
-- constructors
none :: TwoOpts a
justLeft :: a -> TwoOpts a
justRight :: a -> TwoOpts a
both :: a -> a -> TwoOpts a
-- combinators
-- Semigroup and Monoid at least
swap :: TwoOpts a -> TwoOpts a
-- eliminators
getLeft :: TwoOpts a -> Maybe a
getRight :: TwoOpts a -> Maybe a
In this case the eliminators give exactly your representation (Maybe a, Maybe a) as their final coalgebra.
-- same as the tuple in a newtype, just more conventional
data TwoOpts a = TwoOpts (Maybe a) (Maybe a)
Or if you wanted to focus on the constructors side you could use an initial algebra
data TwoOpts a
= None
| JustLeft a
| JustRight a
| Both a a
You are at liberty to change this representation as long as it still implements the combinatory API above. If you have reason to use different representations of the same API, make the API into a typeclass (typeclass design is a whole other story).
In Einstein's famous words, "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Don't define a simple type alias; this exposes the details of how you implement TwoOpts.
Instead, define a new type, but don't export the data constructor, but rather functions for accessing the two components. Then you are free to change the implementation of the type all you like without changing the interface, because the user can't pattern-match on a value of type TwoOpts a.
module Module1 (TwoOpts, inverseAndSqrt, getFirstOpt, getSecondOpt) where
data TwoOpts a = TwoOpts (Maybe a) (Maybe a)
getFirstOpt, getSecondOpt :: TwoOpts a -> Maybe a
getFirstOpt (TwoOpts a _) = a
getSecondOpt (TwoOpts _ b) = b
inverseAndSqrt :: Int -> TwoOpts Float
inverseAndSqrt x = TwoOpts (safeInverse x) (safeSqrt x)
where safeInverse 0 = Nothing
safeInverse x = Just (1.0 / fromIntegral x)
safeSqrt x | x >= 0 = Just $ sqrt $ fromIntegral x
| otherwise = Nothing
and
module Module2 where
import Module1
fun :: TwoOpts Float -> Float
fun a = case (getFirstOpts a, getSecondOpt a) of
(Just x, Just y) -> x + y
(Just x, Nothing) -> x
(Nothing, Just y) -> y
exportedFun :: Int -> Float
exportedFun = fun . inverseAndSqrt
Later, when you realize that you've reimplemented the type product, you can change your definitions without affecting any user code.
newtype TwoOpts a = TwoOpts { getOpts :: (Maybe a, Maybe a) }
getFirstOpt, getSecondOpt :: TwoOpts a -> Maybe a
getFirstOpt = fst . getOpts
getSecondOpt = snd . getOpts
I'm covering polymorphism and I'm trying to see the practical uses of such a feature.
My basic understanding of Rank 2 is:
type MyType = ∀ a. a -> a
subFunction :: a -> a
subFunction el = el
mainFunction :: MyType -> Int
mainFunction func = func 3
I understand that this is allowing the user to use a polymorphic function (subFunction) inside mainFunction and strictly specify it's output (Int). This seems very similar to GADT's:
data Example a where
ExampleInt :: Int -> Example Int
ExampleBool :: Bool -> Example Bool
1) Given the above, is my understanding of Rank 2 polymorphism correct?
2) What are the general situations where Rank 2 polymorphism can be used, as opposed to GADT's, for example?
If you pass a polymorphic function as and argument to a Rank2-polymorphic function, you're essentially passing not just one function but a whole family of functions – for all possible types that fulfill the constraints.
Typically, those forall quantifiers come with a class constraint. For example, I might wish to do number arithmetic with two different types simultaneously (for comparing precision or whatever).
data FloatCompare = FloatCompare {
singlePrecision :: Float
, doublePrecision :: Double
}
Now I might want to modify those numbers through some maths operation. Something like
modifyFloat :: (Num -> Num) -> FloatCompare -> FloatCompare
But Num is not a type, only a type class. I could of course pass a function that would modify any particular number type, but I couldn't use that to modify both a Float and a Double value, at least not without some ugly (and possibly lossy) converting back and forth.
Solution: Rank-2 polymorphism!
modifyFloat :: (∀ n . Num n => n -> n) -> FloatCompare -> FloatCompare
mofidyFloat f (FloatCompare single double)
= FloatCompare (f single) (f double)
The best single example of how this is useful in practice are probably lenses. A lens is a “smart accessor function” to a field in some larger data structure. It allows you to access fields, update them, gather results... while at the same time composing in a very simple way. How it works: Rank2-polymorphism; every lens is polymorphic, with the different instantiations corresponding to the “getter” / “setter” aspects, respectively.
The go-to example of an application of rank-2 types is runST as Benjamin Hodgson mentioned in the comments. This is a rather good example and there are a variety of examples using the same trick. For example, branding to maintain abstract data type invariants across multiple types, avoiding confusion of differentials in ad, a region-based version of ST.
But I'd actually like to talk about how Haskell programmers are implicitly using rank-2 types all the time. Every type class whose methods have universally quantified types desugars to a dictionary with a field with a rank-2 type. In practice, this is virtually always a higher-kinded type class* like Functor or Monad. I'll use a simplified version of Alternative as an example. The class declaration is:
class Alternative f where
empty :: f a
(<|>) :: f a -> f a -> f a
The dictionary representing this class would be:
data AlternativeDict f = AlternativeDict {
empty :: forall a. f a,
(<|>) :: forall a. f a -> f a -> f a }
Sometimes such an encoding is nice as it allows one to use different "instances" for the same type, perhaps only locally. For example, Maybe has two obvious instances of Alternative depending on whether Just a <|> Just b is Just a or Just b. Languages without type classes, such as Scala, do indeed use this encoding.
To connect to leftaroundabout's reference to lenses, you can view the hierarchy there as a hierarchy of type classes and the lens combinators as simply tools for explicitly building the relevant type class dictionaries. Of course, the reason it isn't actually a hierarchy of type classes is that we usually will have multiple "instances" for the same type. E.g. _head and _head . _tail are both "instances" of Traversal' s a.
* A higher-kinded type class doesn't necessarily lead to this, and it can happen for a type class of kind *. For example:
-- Higher-kinded but doesn't require universal quantification.
class Sum c where
sum :: c Int -> Int
-- Not higher-kinded but does require universal quantification.
class Length l where
length :: [a] -> l
If you are using modules in Haskell, you are already using Rank-2 types. Theoretically speaking, modules are records with rank-2 type properties.
For example, the Foo module below in Haskell ...
module Foo(id) where
id :: forall a. a -> a
id x = x
import qualified Foo
main = do
putStrLn (Foo.id "hello")
return ()
... can actually be thought as a record as follows:
type FooType = FooType {
id :: forall a. a -> a
}
Foo :: FooType
Foo = Foo {
id = \x -> x
}
P/S (unrelated this question): from a language design perspective, if you are going to support module system, then you might as well support higher-rank types (i.e. allow arbitrary quantification of type variables on any level) to reduce duplication of efforts (i.e. type checking a module should be almost the same as type checking a record with higher rank types).
The reason why Set is not a functor is given here. It seems to boil down to the fact that a == b && f a /= f b is possible. So, why doesn't Haskell have as standard an alternative to Eq, something like
class Eq a => StrongEq a where
(===) :: a -> a -> Bool
(/==) :: a -> a -> Bool
x /== y = not (x === y)
x === y = not (x /== y)
for which instances are supposed to obey the laws
∀a,b,f. not (a === b) || (f a === f b)
∀a. a === a
∀a,b. (a === b) == (b === a)
and maybe some others? Then we could have:
instance StrongEq a => Functor (Set a) where
-- ...
Or am I missing something?
Edit: my problem is not “Why are there types without an Eq instance?”, like some of you seem to have answered. It's the opposite: “Why are there instances of Eq that aren't extensionally equal? Why are there too many Eq instances?”, combined with “If a == b does imply extensional equality, why is Set not an instance of Functor?”.
Also, my instance declaration is rubbish (thanks #n.m.). I should have said:
newtype StrongSet a = StrongSet (Set a)
instance Functor StrongSet where
fmap :: (StrongEq a, StrongEq b) => (a -> b) -> StrongSet a -> StrongSet b
fmap (StrongSet s) = StrongSet (map s)
instance StrongEq a => Functor (Set a) where
This makes sense neither in Haskell nor in the grand mathematical/categorical scheme of things, regardless of what StrongEq means.
In Haskell, Functor requires a type constructor of kind * -> *. The arrow reflects the fact that in category theory, a functor is a kind of mapping. [] and (the hypothetical) Set are such type constructors. [a] and Set a have kind * and cannot be functors.
In Haskell, it is hard to define Set such that it can be made into a Functor because equality cannot be sensibly defined for some types no matter what. You cannot compare two things of type Integer->Integer, for example.
Let's suppose there is a function
goedel :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
goedel x y = -- compute the result of a function with
-- Goedel number x, applied to y
Suppose you have a value s :: Set Integer. What fmap goedel s should look like? How do you eliminate duplicates?
In your typical set theory equality is magically defined for everything, including functions, so Set (or Powerset to be precise) is a functor, no problem with that.
Since I'm not a category theorist, I'll try to write a more concrete/practical explanation (i.e., one I can understand):
The key point is the one that #leftaroundabout made in a comment:
== is supposed to
witness "equivalent by all observable means" (that doesn't necessarily
require a == b must hold only for identical implementations; but
anything you can "officially" do with a and b should again yield
equivalent results. So unAlwaysEq should never be exposed in the first
place). If you can't ensure this for some type, you shouldn't give it
an Eq instance.
That is, there should be no need for your StrongEq because that's what Eq is supposed to be already.
Haskell values are often intended to represent some sort of mathematical or "real-life" value. Many times, this representation is one-to-one. For example, consider the type
data PlatonicSolid = Tetrahedron | Cube |
Octahedron | Dodecahedron | Icosahedron
This type contains exactly one representation of each Platonic solid. We can take advantage of this by adding deriving Eq to the declaration, and it will produce the correct instance.
In many cases, however, the same abstract value may be represented by more than one Haskell value. For example, the red-black trees Node B (Node R Leaf 1 Leaf) 2 Leaf and Node B Leaf 1 (Node R Leaf 2 Leaf) can both represent the set {1,2}. If we added deriving Eq to our declaration, we would get an instance of Eq that distinguishes things we want to be considered the same (outside of the implementation of the set operations).
It's important to make sure that types are only made instances of Eq (and Ord) when appropriate! It's very tempting to make something an instance of Ord just so you can stick it in a data structure that requires ordering, but if the ordering is not truly a total ordering of the abstract values, all manner of breakage may ensue. Unless the documentation absolutely guarantees it, for example, a function called sort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a] may not only be an unstable sort, but may not even produce a list containing all the Haskell values that go into it. sort [Bad 1 "Bob", Bad 1 "James"] can reasonably produce [Bad 1 "Bob", Bad 1 "James"], [Bad 1 "James", Bad 1 "Bob"], [Bad 1 "James", Bad 1 "James"], or [Bad 1 "Bob", Bad 1 "Bob"]. All of these are perfectly legitimate. A function that uses unsafePerformIO in the back room to implement a Las Vegas-style randomized algorithm or to race threads against each other to get an answer from the fastest may even give different results different times, as long as they're == to each other.
tl;dr: Making something an instance of Eq is a way of making a very strong statement to the world; don't make that statement if you don't mean it.
Your second Functor instance also doesn't make any sense. The biggest reason why Set can't be a Functor in Haskell is fmap can't have constraints. Inventing different notions of equality as StrongEq doesn't change the fact that you can't write those constraints on fmap in your Set instance.
fmap in general shouldn't have the constraints you need. It makes perfect sense to have functors of functions, for example (without it the whole notion of using Applicative to apply functions inside a functor breaks down), and functions can't be members of Eq or your StrongEq in general.
fmap can't have extra constraints on only some instances, because of code like this:
fmapBoth :: (Functor f, Functor g) => (a -> b, c -> d) -> (f a, g c) -> (f b, g d)
fmapBoth (h, j) (x, y) = (fmap h x, fmap j y)
This code claims to work regardless of the functors f and g, and regardless of the functions h and j. It has no way of checking whether one of the functors is a special one that has extra constraints on fmap, nor any way of checking whether one of the functions it's applying would violate those constraints.
Saying that Set is a Functor in Haskell, is saying that there is a (lawful) operation fmap :: (a -> b) -> Set a -> Set b, with that exact type. That is precisely what Functor means. fmap :: (Eq a -> Eq b) => (a -> b) -> Set a -> Set b is not an example of such an operation.
It is possible, I understand, to use the ConstraintKinds GHC extendsion to write a different Functor class that permits constraints on the values which vary by Functor (and what you actually need is an Ord constraint, not just Eq). This blog post talks about doing so to make a new Monad class which can have an instance for Set. I've never played around with code like this, so I don't know much more than that the technique exists. It wouldn't help you hand off Sets to existing code that needs Functors, but you should be able to use it instead of Functor in your own code if you wish.
This notion of StrongEq is tough. In general, equality is a place where computer science becomes significantly more rigorous than typical mathematics in the kind of way which makes things challenging.
In particular, typical mathematics likes to talk about objects as though they exist in a set and can be uniquely identified. Computer programs usually deal with types which are not always computable (as a simple counterexample, tell me what the set corresponding to the type data U = U (U -> U) is). This means that it may be undecidable as to whether two values are identifiable.
This becomes an enormous topic in dependently typed languages since typechecking requires identifying like types and dependently typed languages may have arbitrary values in their types and thus need a way to project equality.
So, StrongEq could be defined over a restricted part of Haskell containing only the types which can be decidably compared for equality. We can consider this a category with the arrows as computable functions and then see Set as an endofunctor from types to the type of sets of values of that type. Unfortunately, these restrictions have taken us far from standard Haskell and make defining StrongEq or Functor (Set a) a little less than practical.
How do I write something like the following in Haskell:
showSquare :: (Show a, Num a) => a -> String
showSquare x = "The square of " ++ (show x) ++ " is " ++ (show (x * x))
showSquare :: (Show a, not Num a) => a -> String
showSquare x = "I don't know how to square " ++ (show x)
Basically, something like boost::enable_if in C++.
GHC extensions are ok.
Why would you want this? The typechecker makes sure that you will never call showSquare on something which isn't a Num in the first case. There is no instanceof in Haskell, as everything is typed statically.
It doesn't work for arbitrary types: you can only define your own type class, e.g.
class Mine a where
foo :: a -> String
instance (Num a) => Mine a where
foo x = show x*x
And you can add more instances for other classes, but you won't be able to write just instance Mine a for an arbitrary a. An additional instance (Show a) => ... will also not help, as overlapping instances are also not allowed (the link describes a way to work around it, but it requires quite a bit of additional machinery).
First, giving different type signature to different equations for the same function isn't possible at all. Any function can have only one type, regardless of how much equations it has.
Second, negative constraints does not (would not) have any sound meaning in Haskell. Recall what class constraint mean:
f :: Num a => a -> a -> a
f x y = x + y
Num a in the type of f means that we can apply any class methods of Num type class to values of type a. We are consciously not naming concrete type in order to get generic behavior. Essentially, we are saying "we do not care what a exactly is, but we do know that Num operations are applicable to it". Consequently, we can use Num methods on x and y, but no more than that, that is, we cannot use anything except for Num methods on x and y. This is what type class constraints are and why are they needed. They are specifying generic interface for the function.
Now consider your imaginary not Num a constraint. What information does this statement bring? Well, we know that a should not be Num. However, this information is completely useless for us. Consider:
f :: not Num a => a -> a
f = ???
What can you place instead of ???? Obviously, we know what we cannot place. But except for that this signature has no more information than
f :: a -> a
and the only operation f could be is id (well, undefined is possible too, but that's another story).
Finally consider your example:
showSquare :: (Show a, not Num a) => a -> String
showSquare x = "I don't know how to square " ++ (show x)
I do not give first part of your example intentionally, see the first sentence in my answer. You cannot have different equations with different types. But this function alone is completely useless. You can safely remove not Num a constraint here, and it won't change anything.
The only usage for such negative constrains in statically typed Haskell is producing compile-time errors when you supply, say, Int for not Num a-constrainted variable. But I see no use for this.
If I really, absolutely needed something like this (and I don't believe I ever have), I think this is the simplest approach in Haskell:
class Show a => ShowSquare a where
showSquare :: a -> String
showSquare a = "I don't know how to square " ++ (show a)
instance ShowSquare Int where
showSquare = showSquare'
instance ShowSquare Double where
showSquare = showSquare'
-- add other numeric type instances as necessary
-- make an instance for everything else
instance Show a => ShowSquare a
showSquare' :: (Show a, Num a) => a -> String
showSquare' x = "The square of " ++ (show x) ++ " is " ++ (show (x * x))
This requires overlapping instances, obviously. Some people may complain about the required boilerplate, but it's pretty minimal. 5 or 6 instances would cover most numeric numeric types.
You could probably make something work using ideas from the Advanced Overlap wiki page. Note that technique still requires instances to be listed explicitly, so whether it's better than this is probably a matter of taste.
It's also possible to approach the problem with template haskell, by writing a TH splice instead of a function. The splice would have to reify ''Num at the call site to determine if a Num instance is in scope, then choose the appropriate function. However, making this work is likely to be more trouble than just writing out the Num instances manually.
Depending on "not a Num a" is very fragile in Haskell in a way that is not fragile in C++.
In C++ the classes are defined in one placed (closed) while Haskell type classes are open and can have instances declared in module C of data from module A and class from module B.
The (no extension) resolution of type classes has a guiding principle that importing a module like "C" would never change the previous resolution of type classes.
Code that expected "not a Num Custom" will change if any recursively imported module (e.g. from another package) defined an "instance Num Custom".
There is an additional problem with polymorphism. Consider a function in module "D"
useSS :: Show a => a -> Int -> [String]
useSS a n = replicate n (showSquare a)
data Custom = Custom deriving Show
use1 :: Int -> String
use1 = useSS Custom -- no Num Custom in scope
Now consider a module "E" in another package which imports the above module "D"
instance Num Custom
use2 :: Int -> String
use2 = useSS Custom -- has a Num Custom now
What should (use1 1) and (use2 1) evaluate to? Do you want to work with a language with traps like this? Haskell is trying to prevent, by principled design, the existence of this trap.
This kind of ad hoc overloading is everywhere in C++ resolution but is exactly what Haskell was designed to avoid. It is possible with GHC extensions to do such things, but one has to be careful not to create dangerous traps, and it is not encouraged.
I want to create several incompatible, but otherwise equal, datatypes. That is, I'd like to have a parameterized type Foo a, and functions such as
bar :: (Foo a) -> (Foo a) -> (Foo a)
without actually caring about what a is. To clarify further, I'd like the type system to stop me from doing
x :: Foo Int
y :: Foo Char
bar x y
while I at the same time don't really care about Int and Char (I only care that they're not the same).
In my actual code I have a type for polynomials over a given ring. I don't actually care what the indeterminates are, as long as the type system stops me from adding a polynomial in t with a polynomial in s. So far I've solved this by creating a typeclass Indeterminate, and parameterizing my polynomial type as
data (Ring a, Indeterminate b) => Polynomial a b
This approach feels perfectly natural for the Ring part because I do care about which particular ring a given polynomial is over. It feels very contrived for the Indeterminate part, as detailed below.
The above approach works fine, but feels contrived. Especially so this part:
class Indeterminate a where
indeterminate :: a
data T = T
instance Indeterminate T where
indeterminate = T
data S = S
instance Indeterminate S where
indeterminate = S
(and so on for perhaps a few more indeterminates). It feels weird and wrong. Essentially I'm trying to demand that instances of Indeterminate be singletons (in this sense). The feeling of weirdness is one indicator that I might be attacking this wrongly. Another is the fact that I end up having to annotate a lot of my Polynomial a bs since the actual type b often cannot be inferred (that's not strange, but is annoying nevertheless).
Any suggestions? Should I just keep on doing it like this, or am I missing something?
PS: Don't feel offended if I don't upvote or accept answers immediately. I'll be unable to check back in for a few days.
First of all, I'm not sure this:
data (Ring a, Indeterminate b) => Polynomial a b
...is doing what you expect it to. Contexts on data definitions are not terribly useful--see the discussion here for some reasons why, most of which amount to them forcing you to add extra annotations without actually providing many additional type guarantees.
Second, do you actually care about the "indeterminate" parameter other than to ensure that the types are kept distinct? A pretty standard way of doing that sort of thing is what's called phantom types--essentially, parameters in the type constructor that aren't used in the data constructor. You'll never use or need a value of the phantom type, so functions can be as polymorphic as you want, e.g.:
data Foo a b = Foo b
foo :: Foo a b -> Foo a b
foo (Foo x) = Foo x
bar :: Foo a c -> Foo b c
bar (Foo x) = Foo x
baz :: Foo Int Int -> Foo Char Int -> Foo () Int
baz (Foo x) (Foo y) = Foo $ x + y
Obviously this does require annotations, but only in places where you're deliberately adding restrictions. Otherwise, inference will work normally for the phantom type parameter.
It seems to me that the above approach should be sufficient for what you're doing here--the business with singleton types is mostly about bridging the gap between more complicated type-level stuff and regular value-level computations by creating type proxies for values. This could be useful for, say, marking vectors with types that indicate their basis, or marking numeric values with physical units--both cases where the annotation has more meaning than just "an indeterminate called X".