import Data.Dynamic
default(Integer,Double)
a :: Num a => a
a = 5
-- show :: Show a => a -> String
-- toDyn :: Typeable a => a -> Dynamic
main :: IO ()
-- main = print $ show a -- *** THIS LINE WORKS WELL
main = print $ toDyn a -- *** THIS LINE LEADS TO AN AMBIGUOUS TYPE ERROR
I don't understand why the first "main" version works, and not the second.
Is there someone who can help me ?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
From the Haskell report:
In situations where an ambiguous type is discovered, an ambiguous type variable, v, is defaultable if:
v appears only in constraints of the form C v, where C is a class, and
at least one of these classes is a numeric class, (that is, Num or a subclass of Num), and
all of these classes are defined in the Prelude or a standard library
Your example fails because unlike Show, Typeable is not one of the classes specified in the third point, so no defaulting is performed.
Related
This example works with ghci, load this file:
import Safe
t1 = tailMay []
and put in ghci:
> print t1
Nothing
But if we add analogous definition to previous file, it doesn't work:
import Safe
t1 = tailMay []
t2 = print $ tailMay []
with such error:
* Ambiguous type variable `a0' arising from a use of `print'
prevents the constraint `(Show a0)' from being solved.
Probable fix: use a type annotation to specify what `a0' should be.
These potential instances exist:
instance Show Ordering -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show Integer -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show a => Show (Maybe a) -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
...plus 22 others
That is 3rd sample for ghc with the same error:
import Safe
t1 = tailMay
main = do
print $ t1 []
print $ t1 [1,2,3]
Why? And how to fix the second sample without explicit type annotation?
The issue here is that tailMay [] can generate an output of type Maybe [a] for any a, while print can take an input of type Maybe [a] for any a (in class Show).
When you compose a "universal producer" and a "universal consumer", the compiler has no idea about which type a to pick -- that could be any type in class Show. The choice of a could matter since, in principle, print (Nothing :: Maybe [Int]) could print something different from print (Nothing :: Maybe [Bool]). In this case, the printed output would be the same, but only because we are lucky.
For instance print ([] :: [Int]) and print ([] :: [Char]) will print different messages, so print [] is ambiguous. Hence, GHC reject it, and requires an explicit type annotation (or a type application # type, using an extension).
Why, then, such ambiguity is accepted in GHCi? Well, GHCi is meant to be used for quick experiments, and as such, as a convenience feature, it will try hard to default these ambiguous a. This is done using the extended defaulting rules, which could (I guess) in principle be turned on in GHC as well by turning on that extension.
This is, however, not recommended since sometimes the defaulting rule can choose some unintended type, making the code compile but with an unwanted runtime behavior.
The common solution to this issue is using an annotation (or # type), because it provides more control to the programmer, makes the code easier to read, and avoids surprises.
Given the following code:
import Data.Word
data T = T deriving (Eq, Show)
class C a where f :: a -> ()
instance C T where f _ = ()
instance C Word16 where f _ = ()
main = return $ f 0x16
GHC complains that it can't infer what the type for the literal 0x16 should be with the error:
No instance for (Num a0) arising from the literal ‘22’
The type variable ‘a0’ is ambiguous
It is easy to see why this would be -- Haskell allows numeric literals to be of any type which has an instance of Num, and here we can't disambiguate what the type for the literal 0x16 (or 22) should be.
It's also clear as a human reading this what I intended to do -- there is only one available instance of the class C which satisfies the Num constraint, so obviously I intended to use that one so 0x16 should be treated as a Word16.
There are two ways that I know to fix it: Either annotate the literal with its type:
main = return $ f (0x16 :: Word16)
or define a function which essentially does that annotation for you:
w16 x = x :: Word16
main = return $ f (w16 0x16)
I have tried a third way, sticking default (Word16) at the top of the file in the hope that Haskell would pick that as the default type for numeric literals, but I guess I'm misunderstanding what the default keyword is supposed to do because that didn't work.
I understand that typeclasses are open, so just because you can make the assumption in the context quoted above that Word16 is the only numeric instance of C that may not hold in some other module. But my question is: is there some mechanism by which I can assume/enforce that property, so that it is possible to use f and have Haskell resolve the type of its numeric argument to Word16 without explicit annotations at the call site?
The context is that I am implementing an EDSL, and I would rather not have to include manual type hints when I know that my parameters will either be Word16 or some other non-numeric type. I am open to a bit of dirty types/extensions abuse if it makes the EDSL feel more natural! Although if solutions do involve the naughty pragmas I'd definitely appreciate hints on what I should be wary about when using them.
Quick solution with "naughty pragmas" with GHC 7.10:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleInstances #-}
class C a where f :: a -> ()
instance C T where f _ = ()
instance {-# INCOHERENT #-} (w ~ Word16) => C w where f _ = ()
And with GHC 7.8:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleInstances, IncoherentInstances #-}
class C a where f :: a -> ()
instance C T where f _ = ()
instance (w ~ Word16) => C w where f _ = ()
Here, GHC essentially picks an arbitrary most specific instance that remains after trying to unify the instances heads and constraints.
You should only use this if
You have a fixed set of instances and don't export the class.
For all use cases of the class method, there is a single possible most specific instance (given the constraints).
Many people advise against ever using IncoherentInstances, but I think it can be quite fun for DSL-s, if we observe the above considerations.
For anybody else wondering about default (I know I was!)
https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch4.html#x10-750004.3
Quoting section 4.3.4:
In situations where an ambiguous type is discovered, an ambiguous type variable, v, is defaultable if:
v appears only in constraints of the form C v, where C is a class, and
at least one of these classes is a numeric class, (that is, Num or a subclass of Num), and
all of these classes are defined in the Prelude or a standard library.
So that explains why your default clause is being completely ignored; C is not a standard library type-class.
(As to why this is the rule… can't help you there. Presumably to avoid breaking arbitrary user-defined code.)
In this question the OP asks what the type of the expression return 5 is and the answer has already been given in that question: it is a generic type, as can be verified by typing
:t return 5
in the Haskell interpreter:
return 5 :: (Num a, Monad m) => m a
The specific implementation of return is determined by the context in which it appears: type inference will restrict m to a specific monad such as Maybe, [], IO, and so on.
I can also force the interpreter to pick a specific monad by specifying the type, e.g.
Prelude> return 5 :: Maybe Int
Just 5
Prelude> return 5 :: [Int]
[5]
and so on.
Now if I type the expression return 5 without specifying a type, I get:
Prelude> return 5
5
which is quite surprising to me: I would rather have expected the interpreter to tell me that it cannot pick an appropriate implementation of return because it cannot infer the monadic type to be used.
So my question is: what specific monad has Haskell used here? And based on what criteria was this monad chosen?
EDIT
Thanks for the answer! In fact, if I try to compile this program:
module Main
where
a = return 5
main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn "This program should not compile"
I get an error:
No instance for (Monad m0) arising from a use of `return'
The type variable `m0' is ambiguous
Relevant bindings include
a :: m0 Integer (bound at invalid_return.hs:4:1)
Note: there are several potential instances:
instance Monad ((->) r) -- Defined in `GHC.Base'
instance Monad IO -- Defined in `GHC.Base'
instance Monad [] -- Defined in `GHC.Base'
...plus one other
In the expression: return 5
In an equation for `a': a = return 5
So it only works in GHCi for the reasons explained by Jon.
The monad is IO. This is a minor quirk of the behaviour of GHCi. It tries to unify the type of your input with IO a; if it succeeds, it runs that IO action and tries to show the result. If you give it something other than an IO action, it simply tries to show the value.
It’s for the same reason that these produce the same output:
Prelude> "hello"
"hello"
Prelude> print "hello"
"hello"
The following is quoted from the GHC user guide (Haskell Platform 2012.4.0.0)...
7.6.1.3. Class method types
Haskell 98 prohibits class method types to mention constraints on the class type variable, thus:
class Seq s a where
fromList :: [a] -> s a
elem :: Eq a => a -> s a -> Bool
The type of elem is illegal in Haskell 98, because it contains the constraint Eq a, constrains only the class type variable (in this case a). GHC lifts this restriction (flag -XConstrainedClassMethods).
However, I don't see any explanation of what this means. I can see two possibilities...
The Seq type class implicitly gains the Eq a constraint from elem.
The elem method cannot be used for type class Seq in cases where a is not a member of class Eq (or where it is a member, but that's unknown where elem is used).
I strongly suspect (2) because it seems potentially useful whereas (1) seems useless. (2) basically allows methods to be defined for cases where they can be supported, without limiting the typeclass to only being instanced for those cases.
The example seems to motivate exactly this - the idea being that elem is often a useful operation for sequences, too valuable to live without, yet we also want to support those sequences where elem is unsupportable, such as sequences of functions.
Am I right, or have I missed something? What are the semantics for this extension?
NOTE: it seems like there is a bug in GHC >= 7 that makes GHC accept constrained class methods even in Haskell 98 mode.
Additionally, the example from the manual is always accepted when MultiParamTypeClasses are enabled, regardless of whether the ConstrainedMethodTypes extension is on (also likely a bug).
In the type of elem:
elem :: Eq a => a -> s a -> Bool
a and s are class type variables, and Eq a is a constraint on the class type variable a. As the manual says, Haskell 98 prohibits such constraints (FWIW, it also prohibits multi-parameter type classes). Therefore, the following code shouldn't be accepted in the Haskell 98 mode (and I think it's also prohibited in Haskell 2010):
class Compare a where
comp :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
And indeed, GHC 6.12.1 rejects it:
Prelude> :load Test.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, interpreted )
Test.hs:3:0:
All of the type variables in the constraint `Eq a'
are already in scope (at least one must be universally quantified here)
(Use -XFlexibleContexts to lift this restriction)
When checking the class method: comp :: (Eq a) => a -> a -> Bool
In the class declaration for `Compare'
Failed, modules loaded: none.
Prelude> :set -XConstrainedClassMethods
Prelude> :load Test.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, interpreted )
Ok, modules loaded: Main.
The idea is that superclass constraints should be used instead:
class (Eq a) => Compare a where
comp :: a -> a -> Bool
Regarding semantics, you can easily check whether a class method constraint implicitly adds a superclass constraint with the following code:
{-# LANGUAGE ConstrainedClassMethods #-}
module Main where
class Compare a where
comp :: (Eq a) => a -> a -> Bool
someMethod :: a -> a -> a
data A = A deriving Show
data B = B deriving (Show,Eq)
instance Compare A where
comp = undefined
someMethod A A = A
instance Compare B where
comp = (==)
someMethod B B = B
Testing with GHC 6.12.1:
*Main> :load Test.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, interpreted )
Ok, modules loaded: Main.
*Main> comp A
<interactive>:1:0:
No instance for (Eq A)
arising from a use of `comp' at <interactive>:1:0-5
Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Eq A)
In the expression: comp A
In the definition of `it': it = comp A
*Main> someMethod A A
A
*Main> comp B B
True
Answer: no, it doesn't. The constraint applies only to the method that has a constrained type. So you are right, it's the possibility #2.
One could think of this case as follows:
The application dynamically loads a module, or there is a list of functions from which the user chooses, etc. We have a mechanism for determining whether a certain type will successfully work with a function in that module. So now we want to call into that function. We need to force it to make the call. The function could take a concrete type, or a polymorphic one and it's the case below with just a type class constraint that I'm running into problems with it.
The following code results in the errors below. I think it could be resolved by specifying concrete types but I do not want to do that. The code is intended to work with any type that is an instance of the class. Specifying a concrete type defeats the purpose.
This is simulating one part of a program that does not know about the other and does not know the types of what it's dealing with. I have a separate mechanism that allows me to be sure that the types do match up properly, that the value sent in really is an instance of the type class. That's why in this case, I don't mind using unsafeCoerce. But basically I need a way to tell the compiler that I really do know it's ok and do it anyway even though it doesn't know enough to type check.
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification, RankNTypes, TypeSynonymInstances #-}
module Main where
import Unsafe.Coerce
main = do
--doTest1 $ Hider "blue"
doTest2 $ Hider "blue"
doTest1 :: Hider -> IO ()
doTest1 hh#(Hider h) =
test $ unsafeCoerce h
doTest2 :: Hider -> IO ()
doTest2 hh#(Hider h) =
test2 hh
test :: HasString a => a -> IO ()
test x = print $ toString x
test2 :: Hider -> IO ()
test2 (Hider x) = print $ toString (unsafeCoerce x)
data Hider = forall a. Hider a
class HasString a where
toString :: a -> String
instance HasString String where
toString = id
Running doTest1
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, Test.o )
Test.hs:12:3:
Ambiguous type variable `a1' in the constraint:
(HasString a1) arising from a use of `test'
Probable fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
In the expression: test
In the expression: test $ unsafeCoerce h
In an equation for `doTest1':
doTest1 hh#(Hider h) = test $ unsafeCoerce h
Running doTest2
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Test.hs, Test.o )
Test.hs:12:3:
Ambiguous type variable `a1' in the constraint:
(HasString a1) arising from a use of `test'
Probable fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
In the expression: test
In the expression: test $ unsafeCoerce h
In an equation for `doTest1':
doTest1 hh#(Hider h) = test $ unsafeCoerce h
I think it could be resolved by specifying concrete types but I do not want to do that.
There's no way around it though with unsafeCoerce. In this particular case, the compiler can't infer the type of unsafeCoerce, because test is still to polymorphic. Even though there is just one instance of HasString, the type system won't use that fact to infer the type.
I don't have enough information about your particular application of this pattern, but I'm relatively sure that you need to rethink the way you use the type system in your program. But if you really want to do this, you might want to look into Data.Typeable instead of unsafeCoerce.
Modify your data type slightly:
data Hider = forall a. HasString a => Hider a
Make it an instance of the type class in the obvious way:
instance HasString Hider where
toString (Hider x) = toString x
Then this should work, without use of unsafeCoerce:
doTest3 :: Hider -> IO ()
doTest3 hh = print $ toString hh
This does mean that you can no longer place a value into a Hider if it doesn't implement HasString, but that's probably a good thing.
There's probably a name for this pattern, but I can't think what it is off the top of my head.