Real world haskell says:
we will hide the details of our parser type using a newtype
declaration
I don't get how we can hide anything using the newtype. Can anyone elaborate? What are we trying to hide and how do we do it.
data ParseState = ParseState {
string :: L.ByteString
, offset :: Int64 -- imported from Data.Int
} deriving (Show)
newtype Parse a = Parse {
runParse :: ParseState -> Either String (a, ParseState)
}
The idea is to combine modules + newtypes to keep people from seeing the internals of how we implement things.
-- module A
module A (A, toA) where -- Notice we limit our exports
newtype A = A {unA :: Int}
toA :: Int -> A
toA = -- Do clever validation
-- module B
import A
foo :: A
foo = toA 1 -- Must use toA and can't see internals of A
This prevents from pattern matching and arbitrarily constructing A. This let's our A module make certain assumptions about A and also change the internals of A with impunity!
This is particularly nice because at runtime the newtypes are erased so there's almost no overhead from doing something like this
You hide details by not exporting stuff. So there's two comparisons to make. One is exported vs. not exported:
-- hidden: nothing you can do with "Parse a" values -- though
-- you can name their type
module Foo (Parse) where
newtype Parse a = Parse { superSecret :: a }
-- not hidden: outsiders can observe that a "Parse a" contains
-- exactly an "a", so they can do anything with a "Parse a" that
-- they can do with an "a"
module Foo (Parse(..)) where
newtype Parse a = Parse { superSecret :: a }
The other is more subtle, and is the one RWH is probably trying to highlight, and that is type vs. newtype:
-- hidden, as before
module Foo (Parse) where
newtype Parse a = Parse { superSecret :: a }
-- not hidden: it is readily observable that "Parse a" is identical
-- to "a", and moreover it can't be fixed because there's nothing
-- to hide
module Foo (Parse) where
type Parse a = a
Related
Suppose I have a type with many constructors and a few pattern synonyms. I'd like to use pattern synonyms to replace a few of the constructors. How can I write the necessary COMPLETE pragma(s) without having to write out all the constructors by hand and risk falling behind if more are added?
Using the th-abstraction package, this is quite simple. Some throat clearing:
import Language.Haskell.TH.Datatype (DatatypeInfo (..), ConstructorInfo(..), reifyDatatype)
import Language.Haskell.TH (Q, Dec, Name, pragCompleteD)
import Data.List ((\\))
Using reifyDatatype, we can get info about a type, and extract a list of the names of its constructors. Then we simply need to add on the patterns we want and remove the constructors we don't want.
-- | Produce a #COMPLETE# pragma for a type with many constructors,
-- without having to list them all out.
--
-- #completeWithButWithout ''T ['P] ['C1, 'C2]# produces a #COMPLETE#
-- pragma stating that pattern matching on the type #T# is complete with
-- with the pattern #P# and with all the constructors of #T# other than
-- #C1# and #C2#.
completeWithButWithout :: Name -> [Name] -> [Name] -> Q [Dec]
completeWithButWithout ty extra_patterns excl_constrs = do
di <- reifyDatatype ty
let constrs = map constructorName (datatypeCons di)
(:[]) <$> pragCompleteD (extra_patterns ++ (constrs \\ excl_constrs))
(Just ty)
Now the module defining the datatype just needs to import this one, and say
data Foo = Bar' Int | Baz | Quux | ...
pattern Bar :: Char -> Foo
$(completeWithButWithout ''Foo ['Bar] ['Bar'])
I recommend invoking completeWithButWithout at the very end of the module, to prevent the splice from splitting the module.
I'm trying to learn Haskell.
I'm reading the code on here[1]. I just copy and past some part of the code from lines:46 and 298-300.
Question: What does (..) mean?
I Hoggled it but I got no result.
module Pos.Core.Types(
-- something here
SharedSeed (..) -- what does this mean?
) where
newtype SharedSeed = SharedSeed
{ getSharedSeed :: ByteString
} deriving (Show, Eq, Ord, Generic, NFData, Typeable)
[1] https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-sl/blob/master/core/Pos/Core/Types.hs
The syntax of import/export lists has not much to do with the syntax of Haskell itself. It's just a comma-separated listing of everything you want to export from your module. Now, there's a problem there because Haskell really has two languages with symbols that may have the same name. This is particularly common with newtypes like the one in your example: you have a type-level name SharedSeed :: *, and also a value-level name (data constructor) SharedSeed :: ByteString -> SharedSeed.
This only happens with uppercase names, because lowercase at type level are always local type variables. Thus the convention in export lists that uppercase names refer to types.
But just exporting the type does not allow users to actually construct values of that type. That's often prudent: not all internal-representation values might make legal values of the newtype (see Bartek's example), so then it's better to only export a safe smart constructor instead of the unsafe data constructor.
But other times, you do want to make the data constructor available, certainly for multi-constructor types like Maybe. To that end, export lists have three syntaxes you can use:
module Pos.Core.Types(
SharedSeed (SharedSeed) will export the constructor SharedSeed. In this case that's of course the only constructor anyway, but if there were other constructors they would not be exported with this syntax.
SharedSeed (..) will export all constructors. Again, in this case that's only SharedSeed, but for e.g. Maybe it would export both Nothing and Just.
pattern SharedSeed will export ShareSeed as a standalone pattern (independent of the export of the ShareSeed type). This requires the -XPatternSynonyms extension.
)
It means "export all constructors and record fields for this data type".
When writing a module export list, there's three4 ways you can export a data type:
module ModuleD(
D, -- just the type, no constructors
D(..), -- the type and all its constructors
D(DA) -- the type and the specific constructor
) where
data D = DA A | DB B
If you don't export any constructors, the type, well, can't be constructed, at least directly. This is useful if you e.g. want to enforce some runtime invariants on the data type:
module Even (evenInt, toInt) where
newtype EvenInt = EvenInt Int deriving (Show, Eq)
evenInt :: Int -> Maybe EvenInt
evenInt x = if x `mod` 2 == 0 then Just x else Nothing
toInt :: EvenInt -> Int
toInt (EvenInt x) = x
The caller code can now use this type, but only in the allowed manner:
x = evenInt 2
putStrLn $ if isJust x then show . toInt . fromJust $ x else "Not even!"
As a side note, toInt is usually implemented indirectly via the record syntax for convenience:
data EvenInt = EvenInt { toInt :: Int }
4 See #leftaroundabout's answer
I'd like to write a program that prints out some metadata of a Haskell type. Although I know this isn't valid code, the idea is something like:
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int }
metadata :: Type -> String
metadata t = ???
metadata Person -- returns "Person (name,age)"
The important restriction being I don't have an instance of Person, just the type.
I've started looking into Generics & Typeable/Data, but without an instance I'm not sure they'll do what I need. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Reflection in Haskell works using the Typeable class, which is defined in Data.Typeable and includes the typeOf* method to get a run-time representation of a value's type.
ghci> :m +Data.Typeable
ghci> :t typeOf 'a'
typeOf 'a' :: TypeRep
ghci> typeOf 'a' -- We could use any value of type Char and get the same result
Char -- the `Show` instance of `TypeRep` just returns the name of the type
If you want Typeable to work for your own types, you can have the compiler generate an instance for you with the DeriveDataTypeable extension.
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
import Data.Typeable
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int } deriving Typeable
You can also write your own instance, but really, no one has the time for that. Apparently you can't - see the comments
You can now use typeOf to grab a run-time representation of your type. We can query information about the type constructor (abbreviated to TyCon) and its type arguments:
-- (undefined :: Person) stands for "some value of type Person".
-- If you have a real Person you can use that too.
-- typeOf does not use the value, only the type
-- (which is known at compile-time; typeOf is dispatched using the normal instance selection rules)
ghci> typeOf (undefined :: Person)
Person
ghci> tyConName $ typeRepTyCon $ typeOf (undefined :: Person)
"Person"
ghci> tyConModule $ typeRepTyCon $ typeOf (undefined :: Person)
"Main"
Data.Typeable also provides a type-safe cast operation which allows you to branch on a value's runtime type, somewhat like C#'s as operator.
f :: Typeable a => a -> String
f x = case (cast x :: Maybe Int) of
Just i -> "I can treat i as an int in this branch " ++ show (i * i)
Nothing -> case (cast x :: Maybe Bool) of
Just b -> "I can treat b as a bool in this branch " ++ if b then "yes" else "no"
Nothing -> "x was of some type other than Int or Bool"
ghci> f True
"I can treat b as a bool in this branch yes"
ghci> f (3 :: Int)
"I can treat i as an int in this branch 9"
Incidentally, a nicer way to write f is to use a GADT enumerating the set of types you expect your function to be called with. This allows us to lose the Maybe (f can never fail!), does a better job of documenting our assumptions, and gives compile-time feedback when we need to change the set of admissible argument types for f. (You can write a class to make Admissible implicit if you like.)
data Admissible a where
AdInt :: Admissible Int
AdBool :: Admissible Bool
f :: Admissible a -> a -> String
f AdInt i = "I can treat i as an int in this branch " ++ show (i * i)
f AdBool b = "I can treat b as a bool in this branch " ++ if b then "yes" else "no"
In reality I probably wouldn't do either of these - I'd just stick f in a class and define instances for Int and Bool.
If you want run-time information about the right-hand side of a type definition, you need to use the entertainingly-named Data.Data, which defines a subclass of Typeable called Data.** GHC can derive Data for you too, with the same extension:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
import Data.Typeable
import Data.Data
data Person = Person { name :: String, age :: Int } deriving (Typeable, Data)
Now we can grab a run-time representation of the values of a type, not just the type itself:
ghci> dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
DataType {tycon = "Main.Person", datarep = AlgRep [Person]}
ghci> dataTypeConstrs $ dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
[Person] -- Person only defines one constructor, called Person
ghci> constrFields $ head $ dataTypeConstrs $ dataTypeOf (undefined :: Person)
["name","age"]
Data.Data is the API for generic programming; if you ever hear people talking about "Scrap Your Boilerplate", this (along with Data.Generics, which builds on Data.Data) is what they mean. For example, you can write a function which converts record types to JSON using reflection on the type's fields.
toJSON :: Data a => a -> String
-- Implementation omitted because it is boring.
-- But you only have to write the boring code once,
-- and it'll be able to serialise any instance of `Data`.
-- It's a good exercise to try to write this function yourself!
* In recent versions of GHC, this API has changed somewhat. Consult the docs.
** Yes, the fully-qualified name of that class is Data.Data.Data.
I love Lens library and I love how it works, but sometimes it introduces so many problems, that I regret I ever started using it. Lets look at this simple example:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
main = do
let b = B "x"
print $ view y b
it outputs:
""
And now imagine - we've got a datatype and we refactor it - by changing some names. Instead of getting error (in runtime, like with normal accessors) that this name does not longer apply to particular data constructor, lenses use mempty from Monoid to create default object, so we get strange results instead of error. Debugging something like this is almost impossible.
Is there any way to fix this behaviour? I know there are some special operators to get the behaviour I want, but all "normal" looking functions from lenses are just horrible. Should I just override them with my custom module or is there any nicer method?
As a sidenote: I want to be able to read and set the arguments using lens syntax, but just remove the behaviour of automatic result creating when field is missing.
It sounds like you just want to recover the exception behavior. I vaguely recall that this is how view once worked. If so, I expect a reasonable choice was made with the change.
Normally I end up working with (^?) in the cases you are talking about:
> b ^? y
Nothing
If you want the exception behavior you can use ^?!
> b ^?! y
"*** Exception: (^?!): empty Fold
I prefer to use ^? to avoid partial functions and exceptions, similar to how it is commonly advised to stay away from head, last, !! and other partial functions.
Yes, I too have found it a bit odd that view works for Traversals by concatenating the targets. I think this is because of the instance Monoid m => Applicative (Const m). You can write your own view equivalent that doesn't have this behaviour by writing your own Const equivalent that doesn't have this instance.
Perhaps one workaround would be to provide a type signature for y, so know know exactly what it is. If you had this then your "pathological" use of view wouldn't compile.
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y' :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
y :: Lens' Data String
y = y'
You can do this by defining your own view1 operator. It doesn't exist in the lens package, but it's easy to define locally.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
data Data = A { _x :: String, _y :: String }
| B { _x :: String }
makeLenses ''Data
newtype Get a b = Get { unGet :: a }
instance Functor (Get a) where
fmap _ (Get x) = Get x
view1 :: LensLike' (Get a) s a -> s -> a
view1 l = unGet . l Get
works :: Data -> String
works = view1 x
-- fails :: Data -> String
-- fails = view1 y
-- Bug.hs:23:15:
-- No instance for (Control.Applicative.Applicative (Get String))
-- arising from a use of ‘y’
What is a best approach to get rid of a boilerplate code that serializes/deserializes binary data in Haskell, taking endianness into account? I.e., given this struct:
data Foobar = Foobar { foo :: Word16, bar :: Word32 }
And derived Data.Binary.Binary type class instance:
instance Binary Foobar where
get = do
foo <- get
bar <- get
return $ Foobar foo bar
decode stream :: Foobar treats the data as big endian.
Obvious way is to use getWord16le/getWord32le functions, but it involves lots of manual work (which could be automatically and nicely done by Template Haskell coupled with derive).
Perhaps, parametrized types are the solution?
How about defining little-endian newtypes for words?
newtype LWord16 = LWord16 { unLWord16 :: Word16 }
newtype LWord32 = LWord32 { unLWord32 :: Word32 }
instance Binary LWord16 where get = LWord16 <$> getWord16le
instance Binary LWord32 where get = LWord32 <$> getWord32le
Then deriving Binary for the definition
data Foobar = Foobar { foo :: LWord16, bar :: LWord32 }
should do the right thing.
You can define a typeclass for different Word types, such as:
class BinaryEndian a where
getEndian :: Get a
putEndian :: a -> Put
instance BinaryEndian Word16 where
getEndian = getWord16le
putEndian = putWord16le
etc.
That would make TH code perhaps a little easier to write.