Is it possible to have a type be part of a typeclass? Something like:
class KeyTraits v where
keyType :: *
key :: v -> keyType
data TableRow = { date :: Date, metaData :: String, value :: Int }
instance KeyTraits TableRow where
keyType = Date
key = date
And can these "type-level" functions be used elsewhere? For example:
-- automatically deduce the type for the key, from the value type, using
-- the typeclass
data MyMap v = { getMap :: (KeyTraits v) => Map (keyType) v }
I may be doing something completely wrong, but I basically want the ability to define type relationships like the one above (e.g. Certain values already may have data that can be used as a Key). If that's not possible, or is difficult, could you suggest a better design that is more idiomatic?
Thank you!
Take a look at type families.
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
class KeyTraits k where
type KeyType k :: *
key :: v -> KeyType k
data TableRow = TableRow { date :: Date, metaData :: String, value :: Int }
instance KeyTraits TableRow where
type KeyType TableRow = Date
key = date
data MyMap v = MyMap { getMap :: (KeyTraits v) => Map (KeyType v) v }
Type families are exactly what you are looking for, but there is also another way to achieve their functionality, namely multi-parameter type classes with functional dependencies. With these extensions you code could look like this:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies #-}
class KeyTraits v k | v -> k where
key :: v -> k
data TableRow = { date :: Date, metaData :: String, value :: Int }
instance KeyTraits TableRow Date where
key = date
Here the associated type migrates to type class parameter, and the relationship between v and k, previously implicit, now becomes explicit with functional dependency.
This is completely equivalent to associated types, but IMO provides much more cleaner syntax, especially in functions which use your type class. Compare:
getMap :: (KeyTraits v) => Map (KeyType v) v
and
getMap :: (KeyTraits k v) => Map k v
This becomes more apparent when more types and more type classes appear in single type declaration.
However, type families seem to be preferred by haskell community, and in fact the whole extension is more powerful than MPTC+FD, because type families can be declared without type classes, and there are also data families.
Related
Is there a clean way to avoid the following boilerplate:
Given a Record data type definition....
data Value = A{ name::String } | B{ name::String } | C{}
write a function that safely returns name
getName :: Value -> Maybe String
getName A{ name=x } = Just x
getName B{ name=x } = Just x
getName C{} = Nothing
I know you can do this with Template Haskell, I am looking for a cleaner soln than that, perhaps a GHC extension or something else I've overlooked.
lens's Template Haskell helpers do the right thing when they encounter partial record fields.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Lens
data T = A { _name :: String }
| B { _name :: String }
| C
makeLenses ''T
This'll generate a Traversal' called name that selects the String inside the A and B constructors and does nothing in the C case.
ghci> :i name
name :: Traversal' T String -- Defined at test.hs:11:1
So we can use the ^? operator (which is a flipped synonym for preview) from Control.Lens.Fold to pull out Maybe the name.
getName :: T -> Maybe String
getName = (^? name)
You can also make Prism's for the constructors of your datatype, and choose the first one of those which matches using <|>. This version is useful when the fields of your constructors have different names, but you do have to remember to update your extractor function when you add constructors.
makePrisms ''T
getName' :: T -> Maybe String
getName' t = t^?_A <|> t^?_B
lens is pretty useful!
Why don't you use a GADT? I do not know if you are interested in using only records. But, I fell that GADTs provide a clean solution to your problem, since you can restrict what constructors are valid by refining types.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
module Teste where
data Value a where
A :: String -> Value String
B :: String -> Value String
C :: Value ()
name :: Value String -> String
name (A s) = s
name (B s) = s
Notice that both A and B produce Value String values while C produces Value (). When you define function
name :: Value String -> String
it specifically says that you can only pass a value that has a string in it. So, you can only pattern match on A or B values. This is useful to avoid the need of Maybe in code.
There's a simple record Column v a which holds a Vector from the Data.Vector family (so that v can be Vector.Unboxed, just Vector etc), it's name and type (simple enum-like ADT SupportedTypes). I would like to be able to serialize it using the binary package. To do that, I try to define a Binary instance below.
Now put works fine, however when I try to define deserialization in the get function and want to set a specific type to the rawVector that is being returned based on the colType (U.Vector Int64 when it's PInt, U.Vector Double when it's PDouble etc) - I get this error message:
Couldn't match type v with U.Vector
v is a rigid type variable bound by the instance declaration at src/Quark/Base/Column.hs:75:10
Expected type: v a
Actual type: U.Vector Int64
error.
Is there a better way to achieve my goal - deserialize Vectors of different types based on the colType value or am I stuck with defining Binary instance for all possible Vector / primitive type combinations? Shouldn't be the case...
Somewhat new to Haskell and appreciate any help! Thanks!
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings, TransformListComp, RankNTypes,
TypeSynonymInstances, FlexibleInstances, OverloadedLists, DeriveGeneric #-}
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleContexts,
TypeFamilies, ScopedTypeVariables, InstanceSigs #-}
import qualified Data.Vector.Generic as G
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as U
data Column v a = Column {rawVector :: G.Vector v a => v a, colName :: Text, colType :: SupportedTypes }
instance (G.Vector v a, Binary (v a)) => Binary (Column v a) where
put Column {rawVector = vec, colName = cn, colType = ct} = do put (fromEnum ct) >> put cn >> put vec
get = do t <- get :: Get Int
nm <- get :: Get Text
let pt = toEnum t :: SupportedTypes
case pt of
PInt -> do vec <- get :: Get (U.Vector Int64)
return Column {rawVector = vec, colName = nm, colType = pt}
PDouble -> do vec <- get :: Get (U.Vector Double)
return Column {rawVector = vec, colName = nm, colType = pt}
UPDATED Thank you for all the answers below, some pretty good ideas! It's quite clear that what I want to do is impossible to achieve head-on - so that is my answer. But the other suggested solutions are a good reading in itself, thanks a bunch!
The type you are really trying to represent is
data Column v = Column (Either (v Int) (v Double))
but this representation may be unsatisfactory to you. So how do you write this type with the vector itself at the 'top level' of the constructor?
First, start with a representation of your sum (Either Int Double) at the type level, as opposed to the value level:
data IsSupportedType a where
TInt :: IsSupportedType Int
TDouble :: IsSupportedType Double
From here Column is actually quite simple:
data Column v a = Column (IsSupportedType a) (v a)
But you'll probably want a existentially quantified to use it how you want:
data Column v = forall a . Column (IsSupportedType a) (v a)
The binary instance is as follows:
instance (Binary (v Int), Binary (v Double)) => Binary (Column v) where
put (Column t v) = do
case t of
TInt -> put (0 :: Int) >> put v
TDouble -> put (1 :: Int) >> put v
get = do
t :: Int <- get
case t of
0 -> Column TInt <$> get
1 -> Column TDouble <$> get
Note that there is no inherent reliance in Vector here - v could really be anything.
The problem you're actually running into (or if you're not yet, that you will) is that you're trying to decide a resulting type from an input value. You cannot do that. At all. You could cleverly lock the result type in a box and throw away the key so the type appears to be normal from the outside, but then you cannot do anything much with it because you locked the type in a box and threw away the key. You can store extra information about it using GADTs and boxing it up with a type class instance, but even still this is not a great idea.
Your could make your life far easier here if you simply had two constructors for Column to reflect whether there was a vector of Ints or Doubles.
But really, don't do any of that. Just let the automatically derivable Binary instance deserialize any deserializable value into your vector for you.
data Column a = ... deriving (Binary)
Using the DeriveAnyClass extension that let's you derive any class that has a Generic implementation (which Binary has). Then just deserialize a Column Double or a Column Int when you need it.
As the comment says, you can simply not case on the type, and always call
vec <- get
return Column {rawVector = vec, colName = nm, colType = pt}
This fulfills your type signature properly. But note that colType is not useful to you here -- you have no way to enforce that it corresponds to the type within your vector, since it only exists at the value level. But that may be ok, and you may simply want to remove colType from your data structure altogether, since you can always derive it directly from the concrete type of a chosen in Column v a.
In fact, the constraint in the Column type isn't doing much good either, and I think it would be better to render it just as
data Column v a = Column {rawVector :: v a, colName :: Text}
Now you can just enforce the G.Vector constraint at call sites where necessary...
Hello. I am playing with Ivory library which relies heavily on modern features of Haskell. Among others, it defines the typeclasses IvoryType accepting all types and IvoryArea accepting types of special kind Area. The definitions look like this:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
-- | Proxy datatype with a phantom arbitrary-kinded type
-- and a single constructor
data Proxy (a :: k) = Proxy
-- | The kind of memory-area types.
data Area k
= Struct Symbol
| Array Nat (Area k)
| CArray (Area k)
| Stored k
-- ^ This is lifting for a *-kinded type
class IvoryType t where
ivoryType :: Proxy t -> I.Type {- arguments are not important -}
-- | Guard the inhabitants of the Area type, as not all *s are Ivory *s.
class IvoryArea (a :: Area *) where
ivoryArea :: Proxy a -> I.Type {- arguments are not important -}
OK. Now let's try to express the fact that we are going to store values with ivoryType function defined. Obviously, they are the memebers of IvoryType class, so the answer is
data TypeStorage = TypeStorage (forall t . IvoryType t => t)
So far so good. Now we want to store values which have ivoryArea function defined. Let's use the IvoryArea class as a filter condition, like in the prevoius case:
data AreaStorage = AreaStorage (forall t . IvoryArea t => t)
Surprisingly, the compiler (ghc version 7.8.4) outputs an error
src/IvoryLL/Types.hs:59:45:
Expected a type, but ‘t’ has kind ‘Area *’
In the type ‘forall t. IvoryArea t => t’
In the definition of data constructor ‘AreaBase’
In the data declaration for ‘Area
Could you please explain, how to express the ownership of ivoryArea function in Haskell properly ?
Edit
Some links to the original declarations:
https://github.com/GaloisInc/ivory/blob/master/ivory/src/Ivory/Language/Type.hs
https://github.com/GaloisInc/ivory/blob/master/ivory/src/Ivory/Language/Area.hs
Now that we've established in the comments that you can't do what you want directly, which is create a special "subkind" of all types, we can use a bit more legwork to get what you want.
We just use a (closed) type family to interpret your Area * kind into something of kind * and then GADT, indexed by Area *, to hold such values. We can then wrap the whole shebang up in an existential to store arbitrary values of such a kind, if so desired.
Consider this cut down example:
data Area k
= Stored k
| List (Area k)
type family InterpIvoryArea a :: * where
InterpIvoryArea (Stored k) = k
InterpIvoryArea (List a) = [InterpIvoryArea a]
data AreaStorage a where
AreaStorage :: InterpIvoryArea a -> AreaStorage a
data AreaStorageExistential where
AreaStorageExistential :: AreaStorage a -> AreaStorageExistential
testValue :: AreaStorageExistential
testValue = AreaStorageExistential (AreaStorage [1,2,3] :: AreaStorage (List (Stored Int)))
I have the following code, and I would like this to fail type checking:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import Control.Lens
data GADT e a where
One :: Greet e => String -> GADT e String
Two :: Increment e => Int -> GADT e Int
class Greet a where
_Greet :: Prism' a String
class Increment a where
_Increment :: Prism' a Int
instance Greet (Either String Int) where
_Greet = _Left
instance Increment (Either String Int) where
_Increment = _Right
run :: GADT e a -> Either String Int
run = go
where
go (One x) = review _Greet x
go (Two x) = review _Greet "Hello"
The idea is that each entry in the GADT has an associated error, which I'm modelling with a Prism into some larger structure. When I "interpret" this GADT, I provide a concrete type for e that has instances for all of these Prisms. However, for each individual case, I don't want to be able to use instances that weren't declared in the constructor's associated context.
The above code should be an error, because when I pattern match on Two I should learn that I can only use Increment e, but I'm using Greet. I can see why this works - Either String Int has an instance for Greet, so everything checks out.
I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. Maybe I can use entailment from Data.Constraint, or perhaps there's a trick with higher rank types.
Any ideas?
The problem is you're fixing the final result type, so the instance exists and the type checker can find it.
Try something like:
run :: GADT e a -> e
Now the result type can't pick the instance for review and parametricity enforces your invariant.
Say, I want to define a record Attribute like this:
data Attribute = Attribute {name :: String, value :: Any}
This is not valid haskell code of course. But is there a type 'Any' which basically say any type will do? Or is to use type variable the only way?
data Attribute a = Attribute {name :: String, value :: a}
Generally speaking, Any types aren't very useful. Consider: If you make a polymorphic list that can hold anything, what can you do with the types in the list? The answer, of course, is nothing - you have no guarantee that there is any operation common to these elements.
What one will typically do is either:
Use GADTs to make a list that can contain elements of a specific typeclass, as in:
data FooWrap where
FooWrap :: Foo a => a -> FooWrap
type FooList = [FooWrap]
With this approach, you don't know the concrete type of the elements, but you know they can be manipulated using elements of the Foo typeclass.
Create a type to switch between specific concrete types contained in the list:
data FooElem = ElemFoo Foo | ElemBar Bar
type FooList = [FooElem]
This can be combined with approach 1 to create a list that can hold elements that are of one of a fixed set of typeclasses.
In some cases, it can be helpful to build a list of manipulation functions:
type FooList = [Int -> IO ()]
This is useful for things like event notification systems. At the time of adding an element to the list, you bind it up in a function that performs whatever manipulation you'll later want to do.
Use Data.Dynamic (not recommended!) as a cheat. However, this provides no guarantee that a specific element can be manipulated at all, and so the above approaches should be preferred.
Adding to bdonlan's answer: Instead of GADTs, you can also use existential types:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
class Foo a where
foo :: a -> a
data AnyFoo = forall a. Foo a => AnyFoo a
instance Foo AnyFoo where
foo (AnyFoo a) = AnyFoo $ foo a
mapFoo :: [AnyFoo] -> [AnyFoo]
mapFoo = map foo
This is basically equivalent to bdonlan's GADT solution, but doesn't impose the choice of data structure on you - you can use a Map instead of a list, for example:
import qualified Data.Map as M
mFoo :: M.Map String AnyFoo
mFoo = M.fromList [("a", AnyFoo SomeFoo), ("b", AnyFoo SomeBar)]
The data AnyFoo = forall a. Foo a => AnyFoo a bit can also be written in GADT notation as:
data AnyFoo where
AnyFoo :: Foo a => a -> AnyFoo
There is the type Dynamic from Data.Dynamic which can hold anything (well, anything Typeable). But that is rarely the right way to do it. What is the problem that you are trying to solve?
This sounds like a pretty basic question, so I'm going to give an even more basic answer than anybody else. Here's what is almost always the right solution:
data Attribute a = Attribute { name :: String, value :: a }
Then, if you want an attribute that wraps an Int, that attribute would have type Attribute Int, or an attribute that wraps a Bool would have type Attribute Bool, etc. You can create these attributes with values of any type; for example, we can write
testAttr = Attribute { name = "this is only a test", value = Node 3 [] }
to create a value of type Attribute (Tree Int).
If your data needs to be eventually a specific type, You could use Convertible with GADTs. Because as consumer, you are only interested in a the datatype you need to consume.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
import Data.Convertible
data Conv b where
Conv :: a -> (a -> b) -> Conv b
Chain :: Conv b -> (b -> c) -> Conv c
unconv :: (Conv b) -> b
unconv (Conv a f) = f a
unconv (Chain c f) = f $ unconv c
conv :: Convertible a b => a -> Conv b
conv a = (Conv a convert)
totype :: Convertible b c => Conv b -> Conv c
totype a = Chain a convert
It is not very difficult to derive functor, comonad and monad instances for this. I can post them if you are interested.
Daniel Wagner response is the right one: almost in 90% of cases using a polymorphic type is all that you need.
All the other responses are useful for the remaining 10% of cases, but if you have still no good knowledge of polymorphism as to ask this question, it will be extremely complicated to understand GADTs or Existential Types...
My advice is "keep it as simple as possible".