I've been working through both Learn You a Haskell and Beginning Haskell and have come on an interesting problem. To preface, I'm normally a C++ programmer, so forgive me if I have no idea what I'm talking about.
One of the exercises in Beginning Haskell has me create a type Client, which can be a Government organization, Company, or Individual. I decided to try out record syntax for this.
data Client = GovOrg { name :: String }
| Company { name :: String,
id :: Integer,
contact :: String,
position :: String
}
| Individual { fullName :: Person,
offers :: Bool
}
deriving Show
data Person = Person { firstName :: String,
lastName :: String,
gender :: Gender
}
deriving Show
data Gender = Male | Female | Unknown
deriving Show
This is used for an exercise where given a list of Clients, I have to find how many of each gender are in the list. I started by filtering to get a list of just Individuals since only they have the Gender type, but my method seems to be completely wrong:
listIndividuals :: [Client] -> [Client]
listIndividuals xs = filter (\x -> x == Individual) xs
How would I get this functionality where I can check what "kind" of Client something is. Also for the record syntax, how is my coding style? Too inconsistent?
First of all, I would recommend not using record types with algebraic types, because you end up with partial accessor functions. For example, it is perfectly legal to have the code position (Individual (Person "John" "Doe" Male) True), but it will throw a runtime error. Instead, consider something more like
data GovClient = GovClient {
govName :: String
} deriving Show
data CompanyClient = CompanyClient {
companyName :: String,
companyID :: Integer, -- Also, don't overwrite existing names, `id` is built-in function
companyContact :: String,
companyPosition :: String
} deriving Show
data IndividualClient = IndividualClient {
indvFullName :: Person,
indvOffers :: Bool
} deriving Show
Then you can have
data Client
= GovOrg GovClient
| Company CompanyClient
| Individual IndividualClient
deriving (Show)
Now you can also define your function as
isIndividualClient :: Client -> Bool
isIndividualClient (Individual _) = True
isIndividualClient _ = False
listIndividuals :: [Client] -> [IndividualClient]
listIndividuals clients = filter isIndividualClient clients
Or the more point-free form of
listIndividuals = filter isIndividualClient
Here, in order to make the decision I've simply used pattern matching in a separate function to determine which of Client's constructors was used. Now you get the full power of record and algebraic types, with just a hair more code to worry about, but a lot more safety. You'll never accidentally call a function expecting a government client on an individual client, for example, because it wouldn't type check, whereas with your current implementation it would be more than possible.
If you're concerned with the longer names, I would recommend eventually looking into the lens library that is designed to help you manipulate complex trees of record types with relative ease.
With your current implementation, you could also do something pretty similar to the final solution:
isIndividualClient :: Client -> Bool
isIndividualClient (Individual _ _) = True
isIndividualClient _ = False
listIndividuals :: [Client] -> [Client]
listIndividuals clients = filter isIndividualClient clients
The main difference here is that Individual takes two fields, so I have two _ wildcard matches in the pattern, and the type of listIndividuals is now [Client] -> [Client].
Related
I'm trying to convert data from a list, 'profile1', into a custom type called 'DataSubject'.
I'm passing this to a function 'makeDS' to attempt this conversion - however the following isn't working:
type Name = String
type Age = Int
type Iq = Int
type Language = String
data DataSubject = DS {name :: Name, age :: Age, iq :: Iq, language :: Language} deriving (Show)
data Contain = Name String | Age Int | Iq Int | Language String deriving (Show) --Use so list can take multiple types
profile1 = [Name "Bob", Age 22, Iq 100, Language "French"]
makeDS :: [Contain] -> DataSubject
makeDS t = DS {name = t!!0, age = t!!1, iq = t!!2, language = t!!3}
main = do
let x = makeDS profile1
putStrLn $ show x
Error:
Couldn't match type ‘Contain’ with ‘[Char]’
I'm just getting started with Haskell - could someone advise on my error? And if there's better ways of doing this?
In the definition of makeDS, the variable t is of type [Contain] (i.e. a list of Contain), so when you say t!!0 this will extract the first element of that list, which has type Contain. The problem is that the name field of DataSubject contains a String (which is an alias of [Char]). So you are trying to store a Contain in the place of [Char], which is not possible because the types are different. You need a different approach in you code.
One issue is that every single Contain value represents a single field of DataSubject. So if we are given a list of Contain, there is no guarantee that the values will be given in a specific order (e.g. Name first, followed by Age, etc) or even that all fields are provided. Even if you always provide all fields in a specific order in your code as convention, haskell cannot possibly know that. One solution that does not depend on order is to try to "build" the DataSubject object step-by-step, by starting with an "empty" DataSubject and then examining the list of Contain and adding the corresponding DataSubject field:
makeDS :: [Contain] -> DataSubject
makeDS = foldr updateDS emptyDS
where
updateDS (Name s) ds = ds {name = s}
updateDS (Age n) ds = ds {age = n}
updateDS (Iq n) ds = ds {iq = n}
updateDS (Language s) ds = ds {language = s}
emptyDS = DS {name = "", age = 0, iq = 0, language = ""}
So here, I defined emptyDS which is an "empty" DataSubject object and a function called updateDS which take a (single) Contain and a DataSubject and updates the DataSubject based on the field specified by Contain and then it returns it. Finally, I use a fold to run repeatedly update the DataSubject (starting with emptyDS) using updateDS.
You have a type mismatch. You have a list of Contain. So when you use
t !! 0
you get a Contain, not a String, which is necessary for name in DS. You need a function Contain -> Name, e.g.
containToName :: Contain -> Name
containToName (Name xs) = xs
containToName _ = error "not a name"
However, that's a partial function, since containToName (Age 12) will lead to an error.
Note that this has nothing to do with typeclasses. Now, if you want to use profile1, one way would be to just use
profile1 :: DataSubject
instead of
profile1 :: [Contain]
e.g.
profile1 :: DataSubject
profile1 = DS "Bob" 22 100 "French"
After all, there's nothing in the type [Contain] that will make sure that you have all the ingredients for a complete DataSubject.
And if there's better ways of doing this?
That depends on what you want to do. If you just want to handle DataSubjects, don't use an temporary list of Contain. If you want to handle user input (or similar), it gets a little bit more tricky.
The declaration of DataSubject says that we need a Name for the name field. And Name is the same as String. So in the expression DS {name = t!!0, ...}, we need t !! 0 to return a String. However, t !! 0 returns an element of t, and t has type [Contain]. So t !! 0 has type Contain, which is different from String.
To fix this type error, you need to convert the Contain to a String, maybe so:
DS { name = case t !! 0 of Name s => s, ... }
I'm reading a tutorial on lenses and, in the introduction, the author motivates the lens concept by showing a few examples of how we might implement OOP-style "setter"/"getter" using standard Haskell. I'm confused by the following example.
Let's say we define a User algebraic data types as per Figure 1 (below). The tutorial states (correctly) that we can implement "setter" functionality via the NaiveLens data type and the nameLens function (also in Figure 1). An example usage is given in Figure 2.
I'm perplexed as to why we need such an elaborate construct (i.e., a NaiveLens datatype and a nameLens function) in order to implement "setter" functionality, when the following (somewhat obvious) function seems to do the job equally well: set' a s = s {name = a}.
HOWEVER, given that my "obvious" function is none other than the lambda function that's part of nameLens, I suspect there is indeed an advantage to using the construct below but that I'm too dense to see what that advantage is. Am hoping one of the Haskell wizards can help me understand.
Figure 1 (definitions):
data User = User { name :: String
, age :: Int
} deriving Show
data NaiveLens s a = NaiveLens { view :: s -> a
, set :: a -> s -> s
}
nameLens :: NaiveLens User String
nameLens = NaiveLens name (\a s -> s {name = a})
Figure 2 (example usage):
λ: let john = User {name="John",age=30}
john :: User
λ: set nameLens "Bob" john
User {name = "Bob", age = 30}
it :: User
The main advantage of lenses is that they compose, so they can be used for accessing and updating fields in nested records. Writing this sort of nested update manually using record update syntax gets tedious quite quickly.
Say you added an Email data type:
data Email = Email
{ _handle :: String
, _domain :: String
} deriving (Eq, Show)
handle :: NaiveLens Email String
handle = NaiveLens _handle (\h e -> e { _handle = h })
And added this as a field to your User type:
data User = User
{ _name :: String
, _age :: Int
, _userEmail :: Email
} deriving (Eq, Show)
email :: NaiveLens User Email
email = NaiveLens _userEmail (\e u -> u { _userEmail = e })
The real power of lenses comes from being able to compose them, but this is a bit of a tricky step. We would like some function that looks like
(...) :: NaiveLens s b -> NaiveLens b a -> NaiveLens s a
NaiveLens viewA setA ... NaiveLens viewB setB
= NaiveLens (viewB . viewA) (\c a -> setA (setB c (viewA a)) a)
For an explanation of how this was written, I'll defer to this post, where I shamelessly lifted it from. The resulting set field of this new lens can be thought of as taking a new value and a top-level record, looking up the lower record and setting its value to c, then setting that new record for the top-level record.
Now we have a convenient function for composing our lenses:
> let bob = User "Bob" 30 (Email "bob" "gmail")
> view (email...handle) bob
"bob"
> set (email...handle) "NOTBOB" bob
User {_name = "Bob", _age = 30, _userEmail = Email {_handle = "NOTBOB", _domain = "gmail"}}
I've used ... as the composition operator here because I think it's rather easy to type and still is similar to the . operator. This now gives us a way to drill down into a structure, getting and setting values fairly arbitrarily. If we had a domain lens written similarly, we could get and set that value in much the same way. This is what makes it look like it's OOP member access, even when it's simply fancy function composition.
If you look at the lens library (my choice for lenses), you get some nice tools to automatically build the lenses for you using template haskell, and there's some extra stuff going on behind the scenes that lets you use the normal function composition operator . instead of a custom one.
When I run this buggy code...
data Person = Adult { pName :: String}
| Kid { pName :: String
, pAge :: Int
} deriving Show
getAge :: Person -> Int
getAge p = pAge p
getName :: Person -> String
getName p = pName p
main :: IO ()
main = do
let p1 = Kid "fred" 5
p2 = Adult "john"
ps = [p1, p2]
names = map getName ps
ages = map getAge ps
putStrLn $ "names: " ++ show names
putStrLn $ "ages: " ++ show ages
... I get this in ghci:
names: ["fred","john"]
ages: [5,* * * Exception: No match in record selector pAge
I know how to avoid this error, but I'm wondering why compiling with "ghc -Wall" didn't warn me about this problem. Is there another tool that can help me to prevent this type of error?
Is there [a] tool that can help me to prevent this type of error?
No, but there could be.
As you know, record syntax automatically generates getters with the same name as the attributes you define. Therefore the code
data Person = Adult { pName :: String}
| Kid { pName :: String
, pAge :: Int
} deriving Show
creates the functions pName :: Person -> String and pAge :: Person -> Int. Now, suppose Haskell had subtyping. If it did, then Kid could be a subtype of Person, and pAge could have the more appropriate type Kid -> String. However, Haskell does not have subtyping, and there is therefore no Kid type.
Now, given that Person -> String is the most specific type we can give to pAge, why not warn that pAge is a partial function at compile time? Let me divert the question by referring to the List example
data List a = Cons { head :: a, tail :: List a } | Empty
In this example, head and tail are partial functions: the two components of a non-empty list, but (due to Haskell's lack of subtyping) meaningless accessors on the empty list. So, why no warning by default? Well, by default, you know the code you have written. The compiler doesn't provide warnings if you use unsafePerformIO, because you're the programmer here, you're expected to use such things responsibly.
So tl;dr: if you want the warning here:
getAge :: Person -> Int
getAge p = pAge p
then you're out of luck, because the type system does not have enough information to deduce that this is a problem.
If you want the warning here:
data Person = Adult | Kid { pAge :: Int }
then I'm sure it would be trivial to implement: just check that a given field exists in some constructors but not others. But I do not foresee this warning being widely useful for everyone; some might complain that it would be just noise.
I'd be surprised if http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/catch/ doesn't pick this up.
It does, since 8.4, with -Wpartial-fields.
https://downloads.haskell.org/ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/using-warnings.html#ghc-flag--Wpartial-fields
this post is the following of this one.
I'm realizing a simple battle system as toy project, the typical system you can find in games like Final Fantasy et simila. I've solved the notorious "Namespace Pollution" problem with a class type + custom instances. For example:
type HitPoints = Integer
type ManaPoints = Integer
data Status = Sleep | Poison | .. --Omitted
data Element = Fire | ... --Omitted
class Targetable a where
name :: a -> String
level :: a -> Int
hp :: a -> HitPoints
mp :: a -> ManaPoints
status :: a -> Maybe [Status]
data Monster = Monster{monsterName :: String,
monsterLevel :: Int,
monsterHp :: HitPoints,
monsterMp :: ManaPoints,
monsterElemType :: Maybe Element,
monsterStatus :: Maybe [Status]} deriving (Eq, Read)
instance Targetable Monster where
name = monsterName
level = monsterLevel
hp = monsterHp
mp = monsterMp
status = monsterStatus
data Player = Player{playerName :: String,
playerLevel :: Int,
playerHp :: HitPoints,
playerMp :: ManaPoints,
playerStatus :: Maybe [Status]} deriving (Show, Read)
instance Targetable Player where
name = playerName
level = playerLevel
hp = playerHp
mp = playerMp
status = playerStatus
Now the problem: I have a spell type, and a spell can deal damage or inflict a status (like Poison, Sleep, Confusion, etc):
--Essentially the result of a spell cast
data SpellEffect = Damage HitPoints ManaPoints
| Inflict [Status] deriving (Show)
--Essentially a magic
data Spell = Spell{spellName :: String,
spellCost :: Integer,
spellElem :: Maybe Element,
spellEffect :: SpellEffect} deriving (Show)
--For example
fire = Spell "Fire" 20 (Just Fire) (Damage 100 0)
frogSong = Spell "Frog Song" 30 Nothing (Inflict [Frog, Sleep])
As suggested in the linked topic, I've created a generic "cast" function like this:
--cast function
cast :: (Targetable t) => Spell -> t -> t
cast s t =
case spellEffect s of
Damage hp mana -> t
Inflict statList -> t
As you can see the return type is t, here showed just for consistency. I want be able to return a new targetable (i.e. a Monster or a Player) with some field value altered (for example a new Monster with less hp, or with a new status). The problem is that i can't just to the following:
--cast function
cast :: (Targetable t) => Spell -> t -> t
cast s t =
case spellEffect s of
Damage hp' mana' -> t {hp = hp', mana = mana'}
Inflict statList -> t {status = statList}
because hp, mana and status "are not valid record selector". The problem is that I don't know a priori if t will be a monster or a player, and I don't want to specify "monsterHp" or "playerHp", I want to write a pretty generic function.
I know that Haskell Records are clumsy and not much extensibile...
Any idea?
Bye and happy coding,
Alfredo
Personally, I think hammar is on the right track with pointing out the similarities between Player and Monster. I agree you don't want to make them the same, but consider this: Take the type class you have here...
class Targetable a where
name :: a -> String
level :: a -> Int
hp :: a -> HitPoints
mp :: a -> ManaPoints
status :: a -> Maybe [Status]
...and replace it with a data type:
data Targetable = Targetable { name :: String
, level :: Int
, hp :: HitPoints
, mp :: ManaPoints
, status :: Maybe [Status]
} deriving (Eq, Read, Show)
Then factor out the common fields from Player and Monster:
data Monster = Monster { monsterTarget :: Targetable
, monsterElemType :: Maybe Element,
} deriving (Eq, Read, Show)
data Player = Player { playerTarget :: Targetable } deriving (Eq, Read, Show)
Depending on what you do with these, it might make more sense to turn it inside-out instead:
data Targetable a = Targetable { target :: a
, name :: String
-- &c...
}
...and then have Targetable Player and Targetable Monster. The advantage here is that any functions that work with either can take things of type Targetable a--just like functions that would have taken any instance of the Targetable class.
Not only is this approach nearly identical to what you have already, it's also a lot less code, and keeps the types simpler (by not having class constraints everywhere). In fact, the Targetable type above is roughly what GHC creates behind the scenes for the type class.
The biggest downside to this approach is that it makes accessing fields clumsier--either way, some things end up being two layers deep, and extending this approach to more complicated types can nest them deeper still. A lot of what makes this awkward is the fact that field accessors aren't "first class" in the language--you can't pass them around like functions, abstract over them, or anything like that. The most popular solution is to use "lenses", which another answer mentioned already. I've typically used the fclabels package for this, so that's my recommendation.
The factored-out types I suggest, combined with strategic use of lenses, should give you something that's simpler to use than the type class approach, and doesn't pollute the namespace the way having lots of record types does.
I can suggest three possible solutions.
1) Your types are very OO-like, but Haskell can also express "sum" types with parameters:
data Unit = UMon Monster | UPlay Player
cast :: Spell -> Unit -> Unit
cast s t =
case spellEffect s of
Damage hp' mana' -> case t of
UMon m -> UMon (m { monsterHp = monsterHp m - hp', monsterMana = undefined})
UPluy p -> UPlay (p { playerHp = playerHp p - hp'})
Inflict statList -> undefined
Thing that are similar in OO-design often become "sum" types with parameters in Haskell.
2) You can do what Carston suggests and add all your methods to type classes.
3) You can change your read-only methods in Targetable to be "lenses" that expose both getting and setting. See the stack overflow discussion. If your type class returned lenses then it would make your spell damage possible to apply.
Why don't you just include functions like
InflicteDamage :: a -> Int -> a
AddStatus :: a -> Status -> a
into your type-class?
Record syntax seems extremely convenient compared to having to write your own accessor functions. I've never seen anyone give any guidelines as to when it's best to use record syntax over normal data declaration syntax, so I'll just ask here.
You should use record syntax in two situations:
The type has many fields
The type declaration gives no clue about its intended layout
For instance a Point type can be simply declared as:
data Point = Point Int Int deriving (Show)
It is obvious that the first Int denotes the x coordinate and the second stands for y. But the case with the following type declaration is different (taken from Learn You a Haskell for Great Good):
data Person = Person String String Int Float String String deriving (Show)
The intended type layout is: first name, last name, age, height, phone number, and favorite ice-cream flavor. But this is not evident in the above declaration. Record syntax comes handy here:
data Person = Person { firstName :: String
, lastName :: String
, age :: Int
, height :: Float
, phoneNumber :: String
, flavor :: String
} deriving (Show)
The record syntax made the code more readable, and saved a great deal of typing by automatically defining all the accessor functions for us!
In addition to complex multi-fielded data, newtypes are often defined with record syntax. In either of these cases, there aren't really any downsides to using record syntax, but in the case of sum types, record accessors usually don't make sense. For example:
data Either a b = Left { getLeft :: a } | Right { getRight :: b }
is valid, but the accessor functions are partial – it is an error to write getLeft (Right "banana"). For that reason, such accessors are generally speaking discouraged; something like getLeft :: Either a b -> Maybe a would be more common, and that would have to be defined manually. However, note that accessors can share names:
data Item = Food { description :: String, tastiness :: Integer }
| Wand { description :: String, magic :: Integer }
Now description is total, although tastiness and magic both still aren't.