I want to write a function with this type signature:
getTypeRep :: Typeable a => t a -> TypeRep
where the TypeRep will be the type representation for a, not for t a. That is, the compiler should automatically return the correct type representation at any call sites [to getTypeRep], which will have concrete types for a.
To add some context, I want to create a "Dynamic type" data type, with the twist that it will remember the top-level type, but not its parameter. For example, I want to turn MyClass a into Dynamic MyClass, and the above function will be used to create instances of Dynamic MyClass that store a representation of the type parameter a.
Well, how about using scoped type variables to select the inner component:
{-# LANGUAGE ExplicitForAll #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Data.Dynamic
import Data.Typeable
getTypeRep :: forall t a . Typeable a => t a -> TypeRep
getTypeRep _ = typeOf (undefined :: a)
Works for me:
*Main> getTypeRep (Just ())
()
*Main> getTypeRep (Just 7)
Integer
*Main> getTypeRep ([True])
Bool
Interesting design.
On a tangential note to Don's solution, notice that code rarely require ScopedTypeVariables. It just makes the solution cleaner (but less portable). The solution without scoped types is:
{-# LANGUAGE ExplicitForAll #-}
import Data.Typeable
helper :: t a -> a
helper _ = undefined
getTypeRep :: forall t a. Typeable a => t a -> TypeRep
getTypeRep = typeOf . helper
This function (now) exists in Data.Typeable typeRep
Related
I want to be able to define a (mulit-parameter-) typeclass instance whose implementation of the class's method ignores one of its arguments. This can be easily done as follows.
instance MyType MyData () where
specific _ a = f a
As I'm using this pattern in several places, I tried to generalize it by adding a specialized class method and adequate default implementations. I came up with the following.
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, AllowAmbiguousTypes #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
class MyType a b where
specific :: b -> a -> a
specific = const dontCare
dontCare :: a -> a
dontCare = specific (undefined :: b)
{-# MINIMAL specific | dontCare #-}
This however yields the error Could not deduce (MyType a b0) arising from a use of ‘dontCare’ [..] The type variable ‘b0’ is ambiguous. I don't see why the latter should be the case with the type variable b being scoped from the class signature to the method declaration. Can you help me understand the exact problem that arises here?
Is there another reasonable way to achieve what I intended, namely to allow such trimmed instances in a generic way?
The problem is in the default definition of specific. Let's zoom out for a second and see what types your methods are actually given, based on your type signatures.
specific :: forall a b. MyType a b => b -> a -> a
dontCare :: forall a b. MyType a b => a -> a
In the default definition of specific, you use dontCare at type a -> a. So GHC infers that the first type argument to dontCare is a. But nothing constrains its second type argument, so GHC has no way to select the correct instance dictionary to use for it. This is why you ended up needing AllowAmbiguousTypes to get GHC to accept your type signature for dontCare. The reason these "ambiguous" types are useful in modern GHC is that we have TypeApplications to allow us to fix them. This definition works just fine:
class MyType a b where
specific :: b -> a -> a
specific = const (dontCare #_ #b)
dontCare :: a -> a
dontCare = specific (undefined :: b)
{-# MINIMAL specific | dontCare #-}
The type application specifies that the second argument is b. You could fill in a for the first argument, but GHC can actually figure that one out just fine.
Using the cassava package, the following compiles:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveGeneric #-}
import Data.Csv
import GHC.Generics
data Foo = Foo { foo :: Int } deriving (Generic)
instance ToNamedRecord Foo
However, the following does not:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveGeneric #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveAnyClass #-}
import Data.Csv
import GHC.Generics
data Foo = Foo { foo :: Int } deriving (Generic, ToNamedRecord)
The compiler reports:
test.hs:7:50:
No instance for (ToNamedRecord Int)
arising from the first field of ‘Foo’ (type ‘Int’)
Possible fix:
use a standalone 'deriving instance' declaration,
so you can specify the instance context yourself
When deriving the instance for (ToNamedRecord Foo)
This leaves me with two questions: Why isn't the second version identical to the first? And why is the compiler hoping to find an instance for ToNamedRecord Int?
NB: As pointed out by David in the comments, GHC has been updated since I wrote this. The code as written in the question compiles and works correctly. So just imagine everything below is written in the past tense.
The GHC docs say:
The instance context will be generated according to the same rules
used when deriving Eq (if the kind of the type is *), or the rules for
Functor (if the kind of the type is (* -> *)). For example
instance C a => C (a,b) where ...
data T a b = MkT a (a,b) deriving( C )
The deriving clause will
generate
instance C a => C (T a b) where {}
The constraints C a and C (a,b) are generated from the data constructor arguments, but the
latter simplifies to C a.
So, according to the Eq rules, your deriving clause generates...
instance ToNamedRecord Int => ToNamedRecord Foo where
... which is not the same as...
instance ToNamedRecord Foo where
... in that the former is only valid if there's an instance ToNamedRecord Int in scope (which is appears there isn't in your case).
But I find the spec to be somewhat ambiguous. Should the example really generate that code, or should it generate instance (C a, C (a, b)) => instance C (T a b) and let the solver discharge the second constraint? It appears, in your example, that it's generating such constraints even for fields with fully-concrete types.
I hesitate to call this a bug, because it's how Eq works, but given that DeriveAnyClass is intended to make it quicker to write empty instances it does seem unintuitive.
Suppose I have a simple data type in Haskell for storing a value:
data V a = V a
I want to make V an instance of Show, regardless of a's type. If a is an instance of Show, then show (V a) should return show a otherwise an error message should be returned. Or in Pseudo-Haskell:
instance Show (V a) where
show (V a) = if a instanceof Show
then show a
else "Some Error."
How could this behaviour be implemented in Haskell?
As I said in a comment, the runtime objects allocated in memory don't have type tags in a Haskell program. There is therefore no universal instanceof operation like in, say, Java.
It's also important to consider the implications of the following. In Haskell, to a first approximation (i.e., ignoring some fancy stuff that beginners shouldn't tackle too soon), all runtime function calls are monomorphic. I.e., the compiler knows, directly or indirectly, the monomorphic (non-generic) type of every function call in an executable program. Even though your V type's show function has a generic type:
-- Specialized to `V a`
show :: V a -> String -- generic; has variable `a`
...you can't actually write a program that calls the function at runtime without, directly or indirectly, telling the compiler exactly what type a will be in every single call. So for example:
-- Here you tell it directly that `a := Int`
example1 = show (V (1 :: Int))
-- Here you're not saying which type `a` is, but this just "puts off"
-- the decision—for `example2` to be called, *something* in the call
-- graph will have to pick a monomorphic type for `a`.
example2 :: a -> String
example2 x = show (V x) ++ example1
Seen in this light, hopefully you can spot the problem with what you're asking:
instance Show (V a) where
show (V a) = if a instanceof Show
then show a
else "Some Error."
Basically, since the type for the a parameter will be known at compilation time for any actual call to your show function, there's no point to testing for this type at runtime—you can test for it at compilation time! Once you grasp this, you're led to Will Sewell's suggestion:
-- No call to `show (V x)` will compile unless `x` is of a `Show` type.
instance Show a => Show (V a) where ...
EDIT: A more constructive answer perhaps might be this: your V type needs to be a tagged union of multiple cases. This does require using the GADTs extension:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
-- This definition requires `GADTs`. It has two constructors:
data V a where
-- The `Showable` constructor can only be used with `Show` types.
Showable :: Show a => a -> V a
-- The `Unshowable` constructor can be used with any type.
Unshowable :: a -> V a
instance Show (V a) where
show (Showable a) = show a
show (Unshowable a) = "Some Error."
But this isn't a runtime check of whether a type is a Show instance—your code is responsible for knowing at compilation time where the Showable constructor is to be used.
You can with this library: https://github.com/mikeizbicki/ifcxt. Being able to call show on a value that may or may not have a Show instance is one of the first examples it gives. This is how you could adapt that for V a:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}
import IfCxt
import Data.Typeable
mkIfCxtInstances ''Show
data V a = V a
instance forall a. IfCxt (Show a) => Show (V a) where
show (V a) = ifCxt (Proxy::Proxy (Show a))
(show a)
"<<unshowable>>"
This is the essence of this library:
class IfCxt cxt where
ifCxt :: proxy cxt -> (cxt => a) -> a -> a
instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} IfCxt cxt where ifCxt _ t f = f
I don't fully understand it, but this is how I think it works:
It doesn't violate the "open world" assumption any more than
instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} Show a where
show _ = "<<unshowable>>"
does. The approach is actually pretty similar to that: adding a default case to fall back on for all types that do not have an instance in scope. However, it adds some indirection to not make a mess of the existing instances (and to allow different functions to specify different defaults). IfCxt works as a a "meta-class", a class on constraints, that indicates whether those instances exist, with a default case that indicates "false.":
instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} IfCxt cxt where ifCxt _ t f = f
It uses TemplateHaskell to generate a long list of instances for that class:
instance {-# OVERLAPS #-} IfCxt (Show Int) where ifCxt _ t f = t
instance {-# OVERLAPS #-} IfCxt (Show Char) where ifCxt _ t f = t
which also implies that any instances that were not in scope when mkIfCxtInstances was called will be considered non-existing.
The proxy cxt argument is used to pass a Constraint to the function, the (cxt => a) argument (I had no idea RankNTypes allowed that) is an argument that can use the constraint cxt, but as long as that argument is unused, the constraint doesn't need to be solved. This is similar to:
f :: (Show (a -> a) => a) -> a -> a
f _ x = x
The proxy argument supplies the constraint, then the IfCxt constraint is solved to either the t or f argument, if it's t then there is some IfCxt instance where this constraint is supplied which means it can be solved directly, if it's f then the constraint is never demanded so it gets dropped.
This solution is imperfect (as new modules can define new Show instances which won't work unless it also calls mkIfCxtInstances), but being able to do that would violate the open world assumption.
Even if you could do this, it would be a bad design. I would recommend adding a Show constraint to a:
instance Show a => Show (V a) where ...
If you want to store members in a container data type that are not an instance of Show, then you should create a new data type fore them.
I have a type named Showable like this:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ExplicitForAll #-}
data Showable = forall a . Show a => Showable a
Then making a function that packs it is trivial. I just have to write:
pack :: forall a . Show a => a -> Showable
pack x = Showable x
However it seems impossible to create the inverse function that would unpack the data from Showable. If I try to just invert what I wrote for pack and write:
unpack :: exists a . Show a => Showable -> a
unpack (Showable x) = x
then I get an error from GHC.
I have looked into the docs on GHC Language extensions and there seems to be no support for the exists keyword. I have seen that it might be possible in some other Haskell compilers, but I would prefer to be able to do it in GHC as well.
Funnily enough, I can still pattern match on Showable and extract the data from inside it in that way. So I could get the value out of it that way, but if I wanted to make a pointfree function involving Showable, then I would need unpack.
So is there some way to implement unpack in GHC's Haskell, maybe using Type Families or some other arcane magic that are GHC extensions?
Your unpack, as you have typed, cannot be written. The reason is that the existential variable a "escapes" the scope of the pattern match and there is no facility to track that behavior. Quote the docs:
data Baz = forall a. Eq a => Baz1 a a
| forall b. Show b => Baz2 b (b -> b)
When pattern matching, each pattern match introduces a new, distinct, type for each existential type variable. These types cannot be unified with any other type, nor can they escape from the scope of the pattern match. For example, these fragments are incorrect:
f1 (MkFoo a f) = a
What is this "a" in the result type? Clearly we don't mean this:
f1 :: forall a. Foo -> a -- Wrong!
The original program is just plain wrong. Here's another sort of error
f2 (Baz1 a b) (Baz1 p q) = a==q
It's ok to say a==b or p==q, but a==q is wrong because it equates the two distinct types arising from the two Baz1 constructors.
You can however rewrite the unpack type equivalently so that the existential does not escape:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
module Lib where
data Showable = forall a. Show a => Showable a
pack :: Show a => a -> Showable
pack = Showable
unpack :: Showable -> (forall a. Show a => a -> r) -> r
unpack (Showable a) a2r = a2r a
Is there a sane way to apply a polymorphic function to a value of type Dynamic?
For instance, I have a value of type Dynamic and I want to apply Just to the value inside the Dynamic. So if the value was constructed by toDyn True I want the result to be toDyn (Just True). The number of different types that can occur inside the Dynamic is not bounded.
(I have a solution when the types involved come from a closed universe, but it's unpleasant.)
This is perhaps not the sanest approach, but we can abuse my reflection package to lie about a TypeRep.
{-# LANGUAGE Rank2Types, FlexibleContexts, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Data.Dynamic
import Data.Proxy
import Data.Reflection
import GHC.Prim (Any)
import Unsafe.Coerce
newtype WithRep s a = WithRep { withRep :: a }
instance Reifies s TypeRep => Typeable (WithRep s a) where
typeOf s = reflect (Proxy :: Proxy s)
Given that we can now peek at the TypeRep of our Dynamic argument and instantiate our Dynamic function appropriately.
apD :: forall f. Typeable1 f => (forall a. a -> f a) -> Dynamic -> Dynamic
apD f a = dynApp df a
where t = dynTypeRep a
df = reify (mkFunTy t (typeOf1 (undefined :: f ()) `mkAppTy` t)) $
\(_ :: Proxy s) -> toDyn (WithRep f :: WithRep s (() -> f ()))
It could be a lot easier if base just supplied something like apD for us, but that requires a rank 2 type, and Typeable/Dynamic manage to avoid them, even if Data does not.
Another path would be to just exploit the implementation of Dynamic:
data Dynamic = Dynamic TypeRep Any
and unsafeCoerce to your own Dynamic' data type, do what you need to do with the TypeRep in the internals, and after applying your function, unsafeCoerce everything back.