Just started learning Haskell.
I have an empty source file with this inside:
pe :: (Integral a) => a -> a
pe y = sum [x | x <- [1..y-1], x `mod` 3 == 0 || x `mod` 5 == 0]
Now if I ghci this, I can call pe like so:
*Main> pe 1000
233168
How do I call it from within my source file? If I have
pe 1000
it returns a cryptic error:
GHC stage restriction: `pe'
is used in a top-level splice or annotation,
and must be imported, not defined locally
In the expression: pe 1000
Do I need to declare it in main or something?
Yes, you need to hook it up to your main function. For example,
main = print (pe 1000)
If you want to have multiple calls, you can combine them with do-notation:
main = do
print (pe 500)
print (pe 1000)
A Haskell source file contains a sequence of definitions, not expressions. So you can't just put an expression in the top level of the file, you have to put it inside the body of a definition. So since pe 1000 is not a definition, you get an error.
But why such a cryptic error message? GHC has an extension called Template Haskell, which allows you to programmatically create definitions at compile time. To achieve this it allows you to put an expression in a place where usually only definitions are allowed and evaluates the expression at compile time and replace the expression with its result (which must be a definition) - this is called splicing and the expression is then called a splice. Such a splice needs to meet two requirements:
Any identifiers used in the expression must be defined in a different source file (this is required so that the used functions are already compiled when the expression is encountered and thus can be called during compile-time)
The type of the expression must be a Template Haskell type which represents a valid definition.
So since your expression pe 1000 appears somewhere where only definitions are allowed, GHC assumes it is a splice. However since it does not meet the first of the above criteria, i.e. it is defined in the current file instead of a different file, GHC complains about that. Of course it doesn't meet the second condition either, but GHC hasn't gotten to that yet, when it produces the error message. If pe were defined in a different source file, you'd have gotten an error message complaining about the fact that pe has the wrong type.
Related
I'm restricting myself the use of prebuilt-in functions for training purposes. I have recoded length as count and it works.
I have a search funtion that simply returns a value at index in a list when given an index and a list. It works completly fine. It throws an error when the index is too large.
search [] _ = error "index too large"
search (a:_) 0 = a
search (_:a) b = search a (b - 1)
Now, I want a safeSearch function that return Nothing if the index is too large of if the list is empty. So I've simply done this.
safeSearch :: [a] -> Int -> Maybe a
safeSearch a b
| b < 0 || b >= count a = Nothing
| otherwise = Just (search a b)
And it works! ... as long as you don't try it on an empty list. Even with an index too large for the list length.
main = print(safeSearch [] 5)
This crashes and I really can't find any way around it.
Even though I don't think my second line is usefull (because if the list is empty, its count is 0 so we drop in the first guard and it should return Nothing?) its not working. Removing it does not solve the problem.
Here's the compile-time error.
main.hs:91:8: 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
...plus 13 instances involving out-of-scope types
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
* In the expression: print (safeSearch [] 5)
In an equation for `main': main = print (safeSearch [] 5)
|
91 | main = print(safeSearch [] 5)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exit status 1
Any idea? Something I'm missing or even completly going wrong? A concept I need to understand deeper?
The problem is a compile error. That means it isn't actually running your code and hitting your error "index too large" call; the compiler is rejecting your code before it can even try to run it. So you're looking in the wrong place if you're trying to change the code to avoid that.
What's actually happening is that safeSearch [] 5 is returning a value of type Maybe a, where a is the type of the elements in the list. But you didn't include any elements in the list, so there is nothing at all to decide what that type a is.
Your function safeSearch can work for any type, so that's actually fine. But you also try to print the Maybe a value. Using print requires a Show instance, and the instance for Maybe a requires there to also be a Show instance for a. Because there is nothing saying what type a is, the compiler has no way of finding the appropriate Show instance for it, so it has to abort compilation with an error.
The most straightforward way to solve it is to add a type annotation (either of the list, or the Maybe a value resulting from safeSearch). Something like this:
main = print (safeSearch ([] :: [Int]) 5)
(This is what the error message is talking about when it says an ambiguous type variable is preventing a Show constraint from being solved, and that the probable fix is to add a type annotation)
Note that this sort of issue is rarely a problem in "real" code. Normally if you have a list processed into another structure with a related type, you will have other code that does something with the elements or the result, or that produced the list (which isn't always empty). You wouldn't normally write a program that does nothing but process an always-empty list and print the result, except for these kinds of quick tests. So normally, when there is that other code as well, there will be enough context for the compiler to deduce the type of your empty list, and the extra type annotations will not be needed. So this kind of extra type annotation is not usually considered a serious burden that needs to be avoided, because they are hardly ever needed in "real" code. You just code as you want, and on the occassion that a compile error makes your realise you need an annotation you simply add it and move on.
If you do this kind of quick check in GHCi rather than writing a full program with a main function, then you also would not have needed the extra type annotation. This is because GHCi has the ExtendedDefaultRules language extension turned on by default. The "default rules" are conditions when GHC will choose a type for you instead of throwing an "ambiguous type" error. The normal default rules are pretty strict, and really only designed for defaulting numeric constraints (like Num a or Real a, etc). They do not apply to your original example. The "extended default rules" apply more often to avoid needing lots of type signatures in the interactive interpreter (since there you enter one line at a time, instead of the compiler being able to see the full module to infer types from usage). In this case entering print (safeSearch [] 5) at the interpreter prompt will work because it defaults the returned type to Maybe (), and it just so happens that printing Nothing :: Maybe () produces the same output as it would if it had correctly guessed the type you actually meant.
But in almost any real program, defaulting a type variable to () will be a stupid thing to do that makes things work less, so I do not recommend getting into the habit of enabling ExtendedDefaultRules in an actual module. Just add the type annotation, or do quick checks in the interpreter instead of in a module.
What you've written works great for any real-world use case. It only fails when someone writes print (safeSearch [] x) - a literal empty list, with no context to tell what result type is expected. It works fine if they pass in a nonempty list, or a list expression that happens to evaluate to an empty list, or if they use the result in a way that lets type inference figure out what was intended.
Further, there is really no way to write the function so that it works when passed a contextless empty list. The burden to make the types clear is necessarily placed on call sites, not the definition. The comments on your question have already shown how to do this; you only have to be that explicit when you're calling your function in a way that's obviously useless.
I am saving some commands in a Haskell script in a .hs file while working thru a Haskell textbook. Here's a small example.
fst (1,2)
snd (1,2)
When I run these commands from the prelude in GHCi, they work fine. When I try to compile the .hs file with these two lines, I get the following:
ch4_test.hs:2:1: error:
Parse error: module header, import declaration
or top-level declaration expected.
|
2 | fst (1,2)
| ^^^^^^^^^
Failed, no modules loaded.
I've googled this error and can't find any explanation what I'm doing wrong.
From a newbie to future newbies: The interactive environment ghci would lead you to believe that you can punch some expressions into an .hs file and run the thing (in a similar fashion to languages like swift and ruby). This is not the case.
Haskell needs an entrypoint called main. Quoting:
Here is a simple program to read and then print a character:
main :: IO ()
main = do c <- getChar
putChar c
The use of the name main is important: main is defined to be the entry point of a Haskell program (similar to the main function in C), and must have an IO type, usually IO ()
Source: https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/io.html
You can't just put any expression in a hs file.
As the error message says, you need a declaration here. For example:
main =
print (fst (1,2)) >>
print (snd (1,2))
I am getting this error but the cause appears to be completely different from anything posted here. And the error message is not at all helpful.
Using Cabal version 3.6.2.0 with GHCI 8.10.7 on MacOS High Sierra (10.13)
I'm working from this page: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/haskell/haskell_modules.htm
specifically the "custom modules" section. There you can see the code I copied and pasted.
Besides the tutorial not mentioning I needed to add "other-modules: Custom" to myfirstapp.cabal, and besides the fact that the sample Custom.hs file includes "if x 'rem' 2 == 0" rather than "if x rem 2 == 0", here is the problem:
Indentation matters!
This line (inside the quotes) does NOT work "if x rem 2 == 0".
This line DOES work " if x rem 2 == 0"!
Indenting by one space is the difference between success and failure.
I'm totally new to Haskell. I've programmed extensively in PHP, Javascript, and Applescript, and dabbled in a dozen others, and this is the first time I've seen white space matter. I assume this is commonly known amongst Haskell veterans, but it would certainly be nice if that was included prominently in the documentation.
In a Haskell source file, I can write
a = 1
and I had the impression that I have to write the same in GHCi as
let a = 1
, for a = 1 in GHCi gives a parse error on =.
Now, if I write
a = 1
a = 2
in a source file, I will get an error about Multiple declaration of a, but it is OK to write in GHCi:
let a = 1
let a = 2
Can someone help clarify the difference between the two styles?
Successive let "statements" in the interactive interpreter are really the equivalent of nested let expressions. They behave as if there is an implied in following the assignment, and the rest of the interpreter session comprises the body of the let. That is
>>> let a = 1
>>> let a = 1
>>> print a
is the same as
let a = 1 in
let a = 1 in
print a
There is a key difference in Haskell in having two definitions of the same name and identical scopes, and having two definitions of the same name in nested scopes. GHCi vs modules in a file isn't really related to the underlying concept here, but those situations do lead you to encounter problems if you're not familiar with it.
A let-expression (and a let-statement in a do block) creates a set of bindings with the same scope, not just a single binding. For example, as an expression:
let a = True
a = False
in a
Or with braces and semicolons (more convenient to paste into GHCi without turning on multi-line mode):
let { a = True; a = False} in a
This will fail, whether in a module or in GHCi. There cannot be a single variable a that is both True and False, and there can't be two separate variables named a in the same scope (or it would be impossible to know which one was being referred to by the source text a).
The variables in a single binding set are all defined "at once"; the order they're written in is not relevant at all. You can see this because it's possible to define mututally-recursive bindings that all refer to each other, and couldn't possibly be defined one-at-a-time in any order:
λ let a = True : b
| b = False : a
| in take 10 a
[True,False,True,False,True,False,True,False,True,False]
it :: [Bool]
Here I've defined an infinite list of alternating True and False, and used it to come up with a finite result.
A Haskell module is a single scope, containing all the definitions in the file. Exactly as in a let-expression with multiple bindings, all the definitions "happen at once"1; they're only in a particular order because writing them down in a file inevitably introduces an order. So in a module this:
a = True
a = False
gives you an error, as you've seen.
In a do-block you have let-statements rather than let-expressions.2 These don't have an in part since they just scope over the entire rest of the do-block.3 GHCi commands are very like entering statements in an IO do-block, so you have the same option there, and that's what you're using in your example.
However your example has two let-bindings, not one. So there are two separate variables named a defined in two separate scopes.
Haskell doesn't care (almost ever) about the written order of different definitions, but it does care about the "nesting order" of nested scopes; the rule is that when you refer to a variable a, you get the inner-most definition of a whose scope contains the reference.4
As an aside, hiding an outer-scope name by reusing a name in an inner scope is known as shadowing (we say the inner definition shadows the outer one). It's a useful general programming term to know, since the concept comes up in many languages.
So it's not that the rules about when you can define a name twice are different in GHCi vs a module, its just that the different context makes different things easier.
If you want to put a bunch of definitions in a module, the easy thing to do is make them all top-level definitions, which all have the same scope (the whole module) and so you get an error if you use the same name twice. You have to work a bit more to nest the definitions.
In GHCi you're entering commands one-at-a-time, and it's more work to use multi-line commands or braces-and-semicolon style, so the easy thing when you want to enter several definitions is to use several let statements, and so you end up shadowing earlier definitions if you reuse names.5 You have to more deliberately try to actually enter multiple names in the same scope.
1 Or more accurately the bindings "just are" without any notion of "the time at which they happen" at all.
2 Or rather: you have let-statements as well as let-expressions, since statements are mostly made up of expressions and a let-expression is always valid as an expression.
3 You can see this as a general rule that later statements in a do-block are conceptually nested inside all earlier statements, since that's what they mean when you translate them to monadic operations; indeed let-statements are actually translated to let-expressions with the rest of the do-block inside the in part.
4 It's not ambiguous like two variables with the same name in the same scope would be, though it is impossible to refer to any further-out definitions.
5 And note that anything you've previously defined referring to the name before the shadowing will still behave exactly as it did before, referring to the previous name. This includes functions that return the value of the variable. It's easiest to understand shadowing as introducing a different variable that happens to have the same name as an earlier one, rather than trying to understand it as actually changing what the earlier variable name refers to.
This question already has answers here:
Can GHCi tell me the type of a local Haskell function?
(3 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Is it possible to find the type of functions defined in a where statement with GHCI ?
For example, considering this function :
myFunction a b c = case result of
2 -> ...
where
subFunctA = ...
_ -> ...
where
subFunctB = ...
subFunctC = ...
The type of myFunction can be find with :t myFunction.
Is it possible to find the types of subFunctA, subFuncB and subFunctC with GHCI ?
You could try using typed holes if you have a new enough version of GHCi.
Basically, if you write an underscore in the code, the compiler will spit out an error message telling you what type that subexpression should have. In your example, just replace "..." with "_".
No. GHCi does not have access to the source of its functions. This is true even if you defined the function yourself in GHCi, or in a source file.
As an alternative: since you have access to the source of the function you're wondering about, you can copy the functions into the global scope of your source file, compile them, and see what type GHC assigns them. I do this a lot. (Also, you can paste them into GHCi directly.) Once you've done this, you can call :t on them all you want. This does run the risk of producing more general types than the actual sub-functions have, but it could still help you.
I'm new to functional programming. I have a basic question.
I'm using the Hugs interpreter,
I would like to write a function in Haskell; I went though several tutorials, but I'm not getting it.
fact :: Int -> Int
fact n = if n == 0 then
1
else
n * fact (n-1)
This gives me a syntax error :-S
ERROR - Syntax error in input (unexpected `=')
I assume you type this right into the interactive prompt. Sadly, these are relatively primitive in Haskell - complex definitions, such as fact, can't be entered at the prompt, at least not in the same way you'd normally write them.
You need to put function definitions etc. into modules, then load those via (e.g.) :load fact.hs. There are resources for Hugs specifically that provide more information on this and other topic (I used http://cvs.haskell.org/Hugs/pages/hugsman/index.html to check my assumptions).
Also note that indentation matters, so the code won't work the way you posted it here even when in a module. Those tutorials will have correct versions. If not, they're useless and you should forget them.
The syntax is incorrect. In Haskell, whitespace matters, much like it does in Python. More specifically, if you have text that starts on the first column of a line, the interpreter will think it's a top-level declaration. The correct syntax would be (for example):
fact :: Int -> Int
fact n = if n == 0
then 1
else n * fact (n-1)
You could also put the if in one line if you'd like to. So if you're using an interactive prompt you could do:
λ> let fact n = if n == 0 then 1 else n * fact (n-1)
Notice that you'll need to use let in order to define functions on the prompt (at least this is how it's done in GHCi, I'm not sure about Hugs). You'll be better off putting them in a separate file and then loading that in the interpreter. But anyway, a much nicer solution would use pattern-matching in my opinion anyway:
fact :: Int -> Int
fact 0 = 1
fact n = n * fact (n-1)
Here, the interpreter would pattern-match the first argument of the function against the possible cases listed. So if the first argument is null, the result if 1, otherwise apply the function recursively.
Create a file named, for example, fact.hs
-- copying cedric's nicely formatted code
fact :: Int -> Int
fact n = if n == 0
then 1
else n * fact (n-1)
That's all that really needs to be there. When you want to make real modules, you should do some extra stuff.
Now, open up ghci from the same folder. At the ghci prompt, use the :l command to load the "module"
Prelude> :l fact.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( fact.hs, interpreted )
Ok, modules loaded: Main.
*Main> fact 3
6
*Main> fact 10
3628800
I assume it's a very similar process with Hugs. I think hugs requires the file name to be capitalized. ghci simply creates a "Main" module and puts your code in it; that's why the prompt changes from Prelude> to *Main>
When I work on small Haskell functions, I usually keep two terminals open: one for vim and one for ghci. When I change the file in vim (and save it), I just use :r in ghci to reload the new definitions.
*Main> :r
Ok, modules loaded: Main.
It should be mentioned that the most elegant way to write this function is:
fac n = product [1..n]
See http://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html for details.