(Apologies for the weird title, but I could not think of a better one.)
For a personal Haskell project I want to have the concepts of 'absolute values' (like a frequency) and relative values (like the ratio between two frequencies). In my context, it makes no sense to add two absolute values: one can add relative values to produce new relative values, and add a relative value to an absolute one to produce a new absolute value (and likewise for subtraction).
I've defined type classes for these: see below. However, note that the operators ##+ and #+ have a similar structure (and likewise for ##- and #-). Therefore I would prefer to merge these operators, so that I have a single addition operator, which adds a relative value (and likewise a single subtraction operator, which results in a relative value). UPDATE: To clarify, my goal is to unify my ##+ and #+ into a single operator. My goal is not to unify this with the existing (Num) + operator.
However, I don't see how to do this with type classes.
Question: Can this be done, and if so, how? Or should I not be trying?
The following is what I currently have:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
class Abs a where
nullPoint :: a
class Rel r where
zero :: r
(##+) :: r -> r -> r
neg :: r -> r
(##-) :: Rel r => r -> r -> r
r ##- s = r ##+ neg s
class (Abs a, Rel r) => AbsRel a r where
(#+) :: a -> r -> a
(#-) :: a -> a -> r
I think you're looking for a concept called a Torsor. A torsor consists of set of values, set of differences, and operator which adds a difference to a value. Additionally, the set of differences must form an additive group, so differences also can be added together.
Interestingly, torsors are everywhere. Common examples include
Points and Vectors
Dates and date-differences
Files and diffs
etc.
One possible Haskell definition is:
class Torsor a where
type TorsorOf a :: *
(.-) :: a -> a -> TorsorOf a
(.+) :: a -> TorsorOf a -> a
Here are few example instances:
instance Torsor UTCTime where
type TorsorOf UTCTime = NominalDiffTime
a .- b = diffUTCTime a b
a .+ b = addUTCTime b a
instance Torsor Double where
type TorsorOf Double = Double
a .- b = a - b
a .+ b = a + b
instance Torsor Int where
type TorsorOf Int = Int
a .- b = a - b
a .+ b = a + b
In the last case, notice that the two sets of the torsors don't need to be a different set, which makes adding your relative values together simple.
For more information, see a much nicer description in Roman Cheplyakas blog
I don't think you should be trying to unify these operators. Subtracting two vectors and subtracting two points are fundamentally different operations. The fact that it's difficult to represent them as the same thing in the type system is not the type system being awkward - it's because these two concepts really are different things!
The mathematical framework behind what you're working with is the affine space.
These are already available in Haskell in the vector-space package (do cabal install vector-space at the command prompt). Rather than using multi parameter type classes, they use type families to associate a vector (relative) type with each point (absolute) type.
Here's a minimal example showing how to define your own absolute and relative data types, and their interaction:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
import Data.VectorSpace
import Data.AffineSpace
data Point = Point { px :: Float, py :: Float }
data Vec = Vec { vx :: Float, vy :: Float }
instance AdditiveGroup Vec where
zeroV = Vec 0 0
negateV (Vec x y) = Vec (-x) (-y)
Vec x y ^+^ Vec x' y' = Vec (x+x') (y+y')
instance AffineSpace Point where
type Diff Point = Vec
Point x y .-. Point x' y' = Vec (x-x') (y-y')
Point x y .+^ Vec x' y' = Point (x+x') (y+y')
You have two answers telling you what you should do, here's another answer telling you how to do what you asked for (which might not be a good idea). :)
class Add a b c | a b -> c where
(#+) :: a -> b -> c
instance Add AbsTime RelTime AbsTime where
(#+) = ...
instance Add RelTime RelTime RelTime where
(#+) = ...
The overloading for (#+) makes it very flexible. Too flexible, IMO. The only restraint is that the result type is determined by the argument types (without this FD the operator becomes almost unusable because it constrains nothing).
Related
Using GADTs, I have defined a depth-indexed tree data type (2–3 tree). The depth is there to statically ensure that the trees are balanced.
-- Natural numbers
data Nat = Z | S Nat
-- Depth-indexed 2-3 tree
data DT :: Nat -> Type -> Type where
-- Pattern of node names: N{#subtrees}_{#containedValues}
N0_0 :: DT Z a
N2_1 :: DT n a -> a -> DT n a
-> DT (S n) a
N3_2 :: DT n a -> a -> DT n a -> a -> DT n a
-> DT (S n) a
deriving instance Eq a => Eq (DT n a)
Now, some operations (e.g. insertion) might or might not change the depth of the tree. So I want to hide it from the type signature. I do this using existential data types.
-- 2-3 tree
data T :: Type -> Type where
T :: {unT :: DT n a} -> T a
insert :: a -> T a -> T a
insert x (T dt) = case dt of
N0_0 -> T $ N2_1 N0_0 x N0_0
{- ... -}
So far so good. My problem is:
I don't see how I can now define Eq on T.
instance Eq a => Eq (T a) where
(T x) == (T y) = _what
Obviously, I would like to do something like this:
(T {n = nx} x) == (T {n = ny} y)
| nx == ny = x == y
| otherwise = False
I don't know how / whether I can bind the type variables in the patter match. And I am neither sure how to compare them once I get them.
(I suspect Data.Type.Equality is for this, but I haven't seen any example of it in use.)
So, is there a way to implement the Eq (T a) instance, or is there some other approach that is recommended in this case?
You should write a depth-independent equality operator, which is able to compare two trees even if they have different depths n and m.
dtEq :: Eq a => DT n a -> DT m a -> Bool
dtEq N0_0 N0_0 = True
dtEq (N2_1 l1 x1 r1) (N2_1 l2 x2 r2) =
dtEq l1 l2 && x1 == x2 && dtEq r1 r2
dtEq (N3_2 a1 x1 b1 y1 c1) (N3_2 a2 x2 b2 y2 c2) =
dtEq a1 a2 && x1 == x2 && dtEq b1 b2 && y1 == y2 && dtEq c1 c2
dtEq _ _ = False
Then, for your existential type:
instance Eq a => Eq (T a) where
(T x) == (T y) = dtEq x y
Even if in the last line the depths are unknown (because of the existential), it won't matter for dtEq since it can accept any depth.
Minor side note: dtEq exploits polymorphic recursion, in that recursive calls can use a different depth from the one in the original call. Haskell allows polymorphic recursion, as long as an explicit type signature is provided. (We need one anyway, since we are using GADTs.)
You could use Data.Coerce.coerce to compare the contents of the trees: as long as you label the depth parameter as phantom, it should be willing to give you coerce :: DT n a -> DT m a.
But this doesn't really solve the problem, of course: you want to know if their types are the same. Well, maybe there is some solution with Typeable, but it doesn't sound like much fun. Absent Typeable, it seems impossible to me, because you want two contradictory things.
First, you want that trees of different depths should be separate types, not intermixable at all. This means everyone who handles them has to know what type they are.
Second, you want that you can give such a tree to someone without telling them how deep it is, have them munge it around arbitrarily, and then give it back to you. How can they do that, if you require type knowledge to operate on them?
Existentials do not "suppress" type information: they throw it away. Like all type information, it is gone at runtime; and you've made it invisible at compile time too.
I'm also not sure your problem is just with Eq: how will you even implement functions like insert? It's easy for N0_0, because that is known to have type DT Z a, but for the other cases I don't see how you will construct a DT (S n) a to wrap in your T when you can't know what n was.
I'm implementing a notion of inner product that's general over the container and numerical types. The definition states that the return type of this operation is a (non-negative) real number.
One option (shown below) is to write all instances by hand, for each numerical type (Float, Double, Complex Float, Complex Double, Complex CFloat, Complex CDouble, etc.). The primitive types aren't many, but I dislike the repetition.
Another option, or so I thought, is to have a parametric instance with a constraint such as RealFloat (which represents Float and Double).
{-# language MultiParamTypeClasses, TypeFamilies, FlexibleInstances #-}
module Test where
import Data.Complex
class Hilbert c e where
type HT e :: *
dot :: c e -> c e -> HT e
instance Hilbert [] Double where
type HT Double = Double
dot x y = sum $ zipWith (*) x y
instance Hilbert [] (Complex Double) where
type HT (Complex Double) = Double
a `dot` b = realPart $ sum $ zipWith (*) (conjugate <$> a) b
Question
Why does the instance below not work ("Couldn't match type e with Double.. expected type HT e, actual type e")?
instance RealFloat e => Hilbert [] e where
type HT e = Double
dot x y = sum $ zipWith (*) x y
Well, that particular instance doesn't work because the sum only yields an e, but you want the result to be Double. As e is constrained to RealFrac, this is easy to fix though, as any Real (questionable though is is mathematically) can be converted to a Fractional:
dot x y = realToFrac . sum $ zipWith (*) x y
However, that generic instance prevents you from also defining complex instances: with instance RealFloat e => Hilbert [] e where you cover all types, even if they aren't really real numbers. You could still instantiate Complex as an overlapping instance, but I'd rather stay away from those if I could help it.
It's also questionable if such vectorspace classes should be defined on * -> * at all. Yes, linear also does it this way, but IMO parametricity doesn't work in our favour in this application. Have you checked out the vector-space package? Mind, it isn't exactly complete for doing serious linear algebra; that's a gap I hope to fill with my linearmap-category package.
I have played around with TypeFamilies, FunctionalDependencies, and MultiParamTypeClasses. And it seems to me as though TypeFamilies doesn't add any concrete functionality over the other two. (But not vice versa). But I know type families are pretty well liked so I feel like I am missing something:
"open" relation between types, such as a conversion function, which does not seem possible with TypeFamilies. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses:
class Convert a b where
convert :: a -> b
instance Convert Foo Bar where
convert = foo2Bar
instance Convert Foo Baz where
convert = foo2Baz
instance Convert Bar Baz where
convert = bar2Baz
Surjective relation between types, such as a sort of type safe pseudo-duck typing mechanism, that would normally be done with a standard type family. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class HasLength a b | a -> b where
getLength :: a -> b
instance HasLength [a] Int where
getLength = length
instance HasLength (Set a) Int where
getLength = S.size
instance HasLength Event DateDiff where
getLength = dateDiff (start event) (end event)
Bijective relation between types, such as for an unboxed container, which could be done through TypeFamilies with a data family, although then you have to declare a new data type for every contained type, such as with a newtype. Either that or with an injective type family, which I think is not available prior to GHC 8. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class Unboxed a b | a -> b, b -> a where
toList :: a -> [b]
fromList :: [b] -> a
instance Unboxed FooVector Foo where
toList = fooVector2List
fromList = list2FooVector
instance Unboxed BarVector Bar where
toList = barVector2List
fromList = list2BarVector
And lastly a surjective relations between two types and a third type, such as python2 or java style division function, which can be done with TypeFamilies by also using MultiParamTypeClasses. Done with MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies:
class Divide a b c | a b -> c where
divide :: a -> b -> c
instance Divide Int Int Int where
divide = div
instance Divide Int Double Double where
divide = (/) . fromIntegral
instance Divide Double Int Double where
divide = (. fromIntegral) . (/)
instance Divide Double Double Double where
divide = (/)
One other thing I should also add is that it seems like FunctionalDependencies and MultiParamTypeClasses are also quite a bit more concise (for the examples above anyway) as you only have to write the type once, and you don't have to come up with a dummy type name which you then have to type for every instance like you do with TypeFamilies:
instance FooBar LongTypeName LongerTypeName where
FooBarResult LongTypeName LongerTypeName = LongestTypeName
fooBar = someFunction
vs:
instance FooBar LongTypeName LongerTypeName LongestTypeName where
fooBar = someFunction
So unless I am convinced otherwise it really seems like I should just not bother with TypeFamilies and use solely FunctionalDependencies and MultiParamTypeClasses. Because as far as I can tell it will make my code more concise, more consistent (one less extension to care about), and will also give me more flexibility such as with open type relationships or bijective relations (potentially the latter is solver by GHC 8).
Here's an example of where TypeFamilies really shines compared to MultiParamClasses with FunctionalDependencies. In fact, I challenge you to come up with an equivalent MultiParamClasses solution, even one that uses FlexibleInstances, OverlappingInstance, etc.
Consider the problem of type level substitution (I ran across a specific variant of this in Quipper in QData.hs). Essentially what you want to do is recursively substitute one type for another. For example, I want to be able to
substitute Int for Bool in Either [Int] String and get Either [Bool] String,
substitute [Int] for Bool in Either [Int] String and get Either Bool String,
substitute [Int] for [Bool] in Either [Int] String and get Either [Bool] String.
All in all, I want the usual notion of type level substitution. With a closed type family, I can do this for any types (albeit I need an extra line for each higher-kinded type constructor - I stopped at * -> * -> * -> * -> *).
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
-- Subsitute type `x` for type `y` in type `a`
type family Substitute x y a where
Substitute x y x = y
Substitute x y (k a b c d) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b) (Substitute x y c) (Substitute x y d)
Substitute x y (k a b c) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b) (Substitute x y c)
Substitute x y (k a b) = k (Substitute x y a) (Substitute x y b)
Substitute x y (k a) = k (Substitute x y a)
Substitute x y a = a
And trying at ghci I get the desired output:
> :t undefined :: Substitute Int Bool (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either [Bool] [Char]
> :t undefined :: Substitute [Int] Bool (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either Bool [Char]
> :t undefined :: Substitute [Int] [Bool] (Either [Int] String)
undefined :: Either [Bool] [Char]
With that said, maybe you should be asking yourself why am I using MultiParamClasses and not TypeFamilies. Of the examples you gave above, all except Convert translate to type families (albeit you will need an extra line per instance for the type declaration).
Then again, for Convert, I am not convinced it is a good idea to define such a thing. The natural extension to Convert would be instances such as
instance (Convert a b, Convert b c) => Convert a c where
convert = convert . convert
instance Convert a a where
convert = id
which are as unresolvable for GHC as they are elegant to write...
To be clear, I am not saying there are no uses of MultiParamClasses, just that when possible you should be using TypeFamilies - they let you think about type-level functions instead of just relations.
This old HaskellWiki page does an OK job of comparing the two.
EDIT
Some more contrasting and history I stumbled upon from augustss blog
Type families grew out of the need to have type classes with
associated types. The latter is not strictly necessary since it can be
emulated with multi-parameter type classes, but it gives a much nicer
notation in many cases. The same is true for type families; they can
also be emulated by multi-parameter type classes. But MPTC gives a
very logic programming style of doing type computation; whereas type
families (which are just type functions that can pattern match on the
arguments) is like functional programming.
Using closed type families
adds some extra strength that cannot be achieved by type classes. To
get the same power from type classes we would need to add closed type
classes. Which would be quite useful; this is what instance chains
gives you.
Functional dependencies only affect the process of constraint solving, while type families introduced the notion of non-syntactic type equality, represented in GHC's intermediate form by coercions. This means type families interact better with GADTs. See this question for the canonical example of how functional dependencies fail here.
Is there any recommended way to use typeclasses to emulate OCaml-like parametrized modules?
For an instance, I need the module that implements the complex
generic computation, that may be parmetrized with different
misc. types, functions, etc. To be more specific, let it be
kMeans implementation that could be parametrized with different
types of values, vector types (list, unboxed vector, vector, tuple, etc),
and distance calculation strategy.
For convenience, to avoid crazy amount of intermediate types, I want to
have this computation polymorphic by DataSet class, that contains all
required interfaces. I also tried to use TypeFamilies to avoid a lot
of typeclass parameters (that cause problems as well):
{-# Language MultiParamTypeClasses
, TypeFamilies
, FlexibleContexts
, FlexibleInstances
, EmptyDataDecls
, FunctionalDependencies
#-}
module Main where
import qualified Data.List as L
import qualified Data.Vector as V
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as U
import Distances
-- contains instances for Euclid distance
-- import Distances.Euclid as E
-- contains instances for Kulback-Leibler "distance"
-- import Distances.Kullback as K
class ( Num (Elem c)
, Ord (TLabel c)
, WithDistance (TVect c) (Elem c)
, WithDistance (TBoxType c) (Elem c)
)
=> DataSet c where
type Elem c :: *
type TLabel c :: *
type TVect c :: * -> *
data TDistType c :: *
data TObservation c :: *
data TBoxType c :: * -> *
observations :: c -> [TObservation c]
measurements :: TObservation c -> [Elem c]
label :: TObservation c -> TLabel c
distance :: TBoxType c (Elem c) -> TBoxType c (Elem c) -> Elem c
distance = distance_
instance DataSet () where
type Elem () = Float
type TLabel () = Int
data TObservation () = TObservationUnit [Float]
data TDistType ()
type TVect () = V.Vector
data TBoxType () v = VectorBox (V.Vector v)
observations () = replicate 10 (TObservationUnit [0,0,0,0])
measurements (TObservationUnit xs) = xs
label (TObservationUnit _) = 111
kMeans :: ( Floating (Elem c)
, DataSet c
) => c
-> [TObservation c]
kMeans s = undefined -- here the implementation
where
labels = map label (observations s)
www = L.map (V.fromList.measurements) (observations s)
zzz = L.zipWith distance_ www www
wtf1 = L.foldl wtf2 0 (observations s)
wtf2 acc xs = acc + L.sum (measurements xs)
qq = V.fromList [1,2,3 :: Float]
l = distance (VectorBox qq) (VectorBox qq)
instance Floating a => WithDistance (TBoxType ()) a where
distance_ xs ys = undefined
instance Floating a => WithDistance V.Vector a where
distance_ xs ys = sqrt $ V.sum (V.zipWith (\x y -> (x+y)**2) xs ys)
This code somehow compiles and work, but it's pretty ugly and hacky.
The kMeans should be parametrized by value type (number, float point number, anything),
box type (vector,list,unboxed vector, tuple may be) and distance calculation strategy.
There are also types for Observation (that's the type of sample provided by user,
there should be a lot of them, measurements that contained in each observation).
So the problems are:
1) If the function does not contains the parametric types in it's signature,
types will not be deduced
2) Still no idea, how to declare typeclass WithDistance to have different instances
for different distance type (Euclid, Kullback, anything else via phantom types).
Right now WithDistance just polymorphic by box type and value type, so if we need
different strategies, we may only put them in different modules and import the required
module. But this is a hack and non-typed approach, right?
All of this may be done pretty easy in OCaml with is't modules. What the proper approach
to implement such things in Haskell?
Typeclasses with TypeFamilies somehow look similar to parametric modules, but they
work different. I really need something like that.
It is really the case that Haskell lacks useful features found in *ML module systems.
There is ongoing effort to extend Haskell's module system: http://plv.mpi-sws.org/backpack/
But I think you can get a bit further without those ML modules.
Your design follows God class anti-pattern and that is why it is anti-modular.
Type class can be useful only if every type can have no more than a single instance of that class. E.g. DataSet () instance fixes type TVect () = V.Vector and you can't easily create similar instance but with TVect = U.Vector.
You need to start with implementing kMeans function, then generalize it by replacing concrete types with type variables and constraining those type variables with type classes when needed.
Here is little example. At first you have some non-general implementation:
kMeans :: Int -> [(Double,Double)] -> [[(Double,Double)]]
kMeans k points = ...
Then you generalize it by distance calculation strategy:
kMeans
:: Int
-> ((Double,Double) -> (Double,Double) -> Double)
-> [(Double,Double)]
-> [[(Double,Double)]]
kMeans k distance points = ...
Now you can generalize it by type of points, but this requires introducing a class that will capture some properties of points that are used by distance computation e.g. getting list of coordinates:
kMeans
:: Point p
=> Int -> (p -> p -> Coord p) -> [p]
-> [[p]]
kMeans k distance points = ...
class Num (Coord p) => Point p where
type Coord p
coords :: p -> [Coord p]
euclidianDistance
:: (Point p, Floating (Coord p))
=> p -> p -> Coord p
euclidianDistance a b
= sum $ map (**2) $ zipWith (-) (coords a) (coords b)
Now you may wish to make it a bit faster by replacing lists with vectors:
kMeans
:: (Point p, DataSet vec p)
=> Int -> (p -> p -> Coord p) -> vec p
-> [vec p]
kMeans k distance points = ...
class DataSet vec p where
map :: ...
foldl' :: ...
instance Unbox p => DataSet U.Vector p where
map = U.map
foldl' = U.foldl'
And so on.
Suggested approach is to generalize various parts of algorithm and constrain those parts with small loosely coupled type classes (when required).
It is a bad style to collect everything in a single monolithic type class.
Situation
I have function f, which I want to augment with function g, resulting in function named h.
Definitions
By "augment", in the general case, I mean: transform either input (one or more arguments) or output (return value) of function f.
By "augment", in the specific case, (specific to my current situation) I mean: transform only the output (return value) of function f while leaving all the arguments intact.
By "transparent", in the context of "augmentation", (both the general case and the specific case) I mean: To couple g's implementation as loosely to f's implementation as possible.
Specific case
In my current situation, this is what I need to do:
h a b c = g $ f a b c
I am interested in rewriting it to something like this:
h = g . f -- Doesn't type-check.
Because from the perspective of h and g, it doesn't matter what arguments f take, they only care about the return value, hence it would be tight coupling to mention the arguments in any way. For instance, if f's argument count changes in the future, h will also need to be changed.
So far
I asked lambdabot on the #haskell IRC channel: #pl h a b c = g $ f a b c to which I got the response:
h = ((g .) .) . f
Which is still not good enough since the number of (.)'s is dependent on the number of f's arguments.
General case
I haven't done much research in this direction, but erisco on #haskell pointed me towards http://matt.immute.net/content/pointless-fun which hints to me that a solution for the general case could be possible.
So far
Using the functions defined by Luke Palmer in the above article this seems to be an equivalent of what we have discussed so far:
h = f $. id ~> id ~> id ~> g
However, it seems that this method sadly also suffers from being dependent on the number of arguments of f if we want to transform the return value of f -- just as the previous methods.
Working example
In JavaScript, for instance, it is possible to achieve transparent augmentation like this:
function h () { return g(f.apply(this, arguments)) }
Question
How can a function be "transparently augmented" in Haskell?
I am mainly interested in the specific case, but it would be also nice to know how to handle the general case.
You can sort-of do it, but since there is no way to specify a behavior for everything that isn't a function, you'll need a lot of trivial instances for all the other types you care about.
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, DefaultSignatures #-}
class Augment a where
type Result a
type Result a = a
type Augmented a r
type Augmented a r = r
augment :: (Result a -> r) -> a -> Augmented a r
default augment :: (a -> r) -> a -> r
augment g x = g x
instance Augment b => Augment (a -> b) where
type Result (a -> b) = Result b
type Augmented (a -> b) r = a -> Augmented b r
augment g f x = augment g (f x)
instance Augment Bool
instance Augment Char
instance Augment Integer
instance Augment [a]
-- and so on for every result type of every function you want to augment...
Example:
> let g n x ys = replicate n x ++ ys
> g 2 'a' "bc"
"aabc"
> let g' = augment length g
> g' 2 'a' "bc"
4
> :t g
g :: Int -> a -> [a] -> [a]
> :t g'
g' :: Int -> a -> [a] -> Int
Well, technically, with just enough IncoherentInstances you can do pretty much anything:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, TypeFamilies,
FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances, IncoherentInstances #-}
class Augment a b f h where
augment :: (a -> b) -> f -> h
instance (a ~ c, h ~ b) => Augment a b c h where
augment = ($)
instance (Augment a b d h', h ~ (c -> h')) => Augment a b (c -> d) h where
augment g f = augment g . f
-- Usage
t1 = augment not not
r1 = t1 True
t2 = augment (+1) (+)
r2 = t2 2 3
t3 = augment (+1) foldr
r3 = t3 (+) 0 [2,3]
The problem is that the real return value of something like a -> b -> c isn't
c, but b -> c. What you want require some kind of test that tells you if a type isn't
a function type. You could enumerate the types you are interested in, but that's not so
nice. I think HList solve this problem somehow, look at the paper. I managed to understand a bit of the solution with overlapping instances, but the rest goes a bit over my head I'm afraid.
JavaScript works, because its arguments are a sequence, or a list, so there is just one argument, really. In that sense it is the same as a curried version of the functions with a tuple representing the collection of arguments.
In a strongly typed language you need a lot more information to do that "transparently" for a function type - for example, dependent types can express this idea, but require the functions to be of specific types, not a arbitrary function type.
I think I saw a workaround in Haskell that can do this, too, but, again, that works only for specific types, which capture the arity of the function, not any function.