Let's say that I have an adt representing some kind of tree structure:
data Tree = ANode (Maybe Tree) (Maybe Tree) AValType
| BNode (Maybe Tree) (Maybe Tree) BValType
| CNode (Maybe Tree) (Maybe Tree) CValType
As far as I know there's no way of pattern matching against type constructors (or the matching functions itself wouldn't have a type?) but I'd still like to use the compile-time type system to eliminate the possibility of returning or parsing the wrong 'type' of Tree node. For example, it might be that CNode's can only be parents to ANodes. I might have
parseANode :: Parser (Maybe Tree)
as a Parsec parsing function that get's used as part of my CNode parser:
parseCNode :: Parser (Maybe Tree)
parseCNode = try (
string "<CNode>" >>
parseANode >>= \maybeanodel ->
parseANode >>= \maybeanoder ->
parseCValType >>= \cval ->
string "</CNode>"
return (Just (CNode maybeanodel maybeanoder cval))
) <|> return Nothing
According to the type system, parseANode could end up returning a Maybe CNode, a Maybe BNode, or a Maybe ANode, but I really want to make sure that it only returns a Maybe ANode. Note that this isn't a schema-value of data or runtime-check that I want to do - I'm actually just trying to check the validity of the parser that I've written for a particular tree schema. IOW, I'm not trying to check parsed data for schema-correctness, what I'm really trying to do is check my parser for schema correctness - I'd just like to make sure that I don't botch-up parseANode someday to return something other than an ANode value.
I was hoping that maybe if I matched against the value constructor in the bind variable, that the type-inferencing would figure out what I meant:
parseCNode :: Parser (Maybe Tree)
parseCNode = try (
string "<CNode>" >>
parseANode >>= \(Maybe (ANode left right avall)) ->
parseANode >>= \(Maybe (ANode left right avalr)) ->
parseCValType >>= \cval ->
string "</CNode>"
return (Just (CNode (Maybe (ANode left right avall)) (Maybe (ANode left right avalr)) cval))
) <|> return Nothing
But this has a lot of problems, not the least of which that parseANode is no longer free to return Nothing. And it doesn't work anyways - it looks like that bind variable is treated as a pattern match and the runtime complains about non-exhaustive pattern matching when parseANode either returns Nothing or Maybe BNode or something.
I could do something along these lines:
data ANode = ANode (Maybe BNode) (Maybe BNode) AValType
data BNode = BNode (Maybe CNode) (Maybe CNode) BValType
data CNode = CNode (Maybe ANode) (Maybe ANode) CValType
but that kind of sucks because it assumes that the constraint is applied to all nodes - I might not be interested in doing that - indeed it might just be CNodes that can only be parenting ANodes. So I guess I could do this:
data AnyNode = AnyANode ANode | AnyBNode BNode | AnyCNode CNode
data ANode = ANode (Maybe AnyNode) (Maybe AnyNode) AValType
data BNode = BNode (Maybe AnyNode) (Maybe AnyNode) BValType
data CNode = CNode (Maybe ANode) (Maybe ANode) CValType
but then this makes it much harder to pattern-match against *Node's - in fact it's impossible because they're just completely distinct types. I could make a typeclass wherever I wanted to pattern-match I guess
class Node t where
matchingFunc :: t -> Bool
instance Node ANode where
matchingFunc (ANode left right val) = testA val
instance Node BNode where
matchingFunc (BNode left right val) = val == refBVal
instance Node CNode where
matchingFunc (CNode left right val) = doSomethingWithACValAndReturnABool val
At any rate, this just seems kind of messy. Can anyone think of a more succinct way of doing this?
I don't understand your objection to your final solution. You can still pattern match against AnyNodes, like this:
f (AnyANode (ANode x y z)) = ...
It's a little more verbose, but I think it has the engineering properties you want.
I'd still like to use the compile-time type system to eliminate the possibility of returning or parsing the wrong 'type' of Tree node
This sounds like a use case for GADTs.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs, EmptyDataDecls #-}
data ATag
data BTag
data CTag
data Tree t where
ANode :: Maybe (Tree t) -> Maybe (Tree t) -> AValType -> Tree ATag
BNode :: Maybe (Tree t) -> Maybe (Tree t) -> BValType -> Tree BTag
CNode :: Maybe (Tree t) -> Maybe (Tree t) -> CValType -> Tree CTag
Now you can use Tree t when you don't care about the node type, or Tree ATag when you do.
An extension of keegan's answer: encoding the correctness properties of red/black trees is sort of a canonical example. This thread has code showing both the GADT and nested data type solution: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/w1oz/how_are_gadts_useful_in_practical_programming/cw3i9
Related
Exploring and studing type system in Haskell I've found some problems.
1) Let's consider polymorphic type as Binary Tree:
data Tree a = Leaf a | Branch (Tree a) (Tree a) deriving Show
And, for example, I want to limit my considerations only with Tree Int, Tree Bool and Tree Char. Of course, I can make a such new type:
data TreeIWant = T1 (Tree Int) | T2 (Tree Bool) | T3 (Tree Char) deriving Show
But could it possible to make new restricted type (for homogeneous trees) in more elegant (and without new tags like T1,T2,T3) way (perhaps with some advanced type extensions)?
2) Second question is about trees with heterogeneous values. I can do them with usual Haskell, i.e. I can do the new helping type, contained tagged heterogeneous values:
data HeteroValues = H1 Int | H2 Bool | H3 Char deriving Show
and then make tree with values of this type:
type TreeH = Tree HeteroValues
But could it possible to make new type (for heterogeneous trees) in more elegant (and without new tags like H1,H2,H3) way (perhaps with some advanced type extensions)?
I know about heterogeneous list, perhaps it is the same question?
For question #2, it's easy to construct a "restricted" heterogeneous type without explicit tags using a GADT and a type class:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
data Thing where
T :: THING a => a -> Thing
class THING a
Now, declare THING instances for the the things you want to allow:
instance THING Int
instance THING Bool
instance THING Char
and you can create Things and lists (or trees) of Things:
> t1 = T 'a' -- Char is okay
> t2 = T "hello" -- but String is not
... type error ...
> tl = [T (42 :: Int), T True, T 'x']
> tt = Branch (Leaf (T 'x')) (Leaf (T False))
>
In terms of the type names in your question, you have:
type HeteroValues = Thing
type TreeH = Tree Thing
You can use the same type class with a new GADT for question #1:
data ThingTree where
TT :: THING a => Tree a -> ThingTree
and you have:
type TreeIWant = ThingTree
and you can do:
> tt1 = TT $ Branch (Leaf 'x') (Leaf 'y')
> tt2 = TT $ Branch (Leaf 'x') (Leaf False)
... type error ...
>
That's all well and good, until you try to use any of the values you've constructed. For example, if you wanted to write a function to extract a Bool from a possibly boolish Thing:
maybeBool :: Thing -> Maybe Bool
maybeBool (T x) = ...
you'd find yourself stuck here. Without a "tag" of some kind, there's no way of determining if x is a Bool, Int, or Char.
Actually, though, you do have an implicit tag available, namely the THING type class dictionary for x. So, you can write:
maybeBool :: Thing -> Maybe Bool
maybeBool (T x) = maybeBool' x
and then implement maybeBool' in your type class:
class THING a where
maybeBool' :: a -> Maybe Bool
instance THING Int where
maybeBool' _ = Nothing
instance THING Bool where
maybeBool' = Just
instance THING Char where
maybeBool' _ = Nothing
and you're golden!
Of course, if you'd used explicit tags:
data Thing = T_Int Int | T_Bool Bool | T_Char Char
then you could skip the type class and write:
maybeBool :: Thing -> Maybe Bool
maybeBool (T_Bool x) = Just x
maybeBool _ = Nothing
In the end, it turns out that the best Haskell representation of an algebraic sum of three types is just an algebraic sum of three types:
data Thing = T_Int Int | T_Bool Bool | T_Char Char
Trying to avoid the need for explicit tags will probably lead to a lot of inelegant boilerplate elsewhere.
Update: As #DanielWagner pointed out in a comment, you can use Data.Typeable in place of this boilerplate (effectively, have GHC generate a lot of boilerplate for you), so you can write:
import Data.Typeable
data Thing where
T :: THING a => a -> Thing
class Typeable a => THING a
instance THING Int
instance THING Bool
instance THING Char
maybeBool :: Thing -> Maybe Bool
maybeBool = cast
This perhaps seems "elegant" at first, but if you try this approach in real code, I think you'll regret losing the ability to pattern match on Thing constructors at usage sites (and so having to substitute chains of casts and/or comparisons of TypeReps).
I'm writing a compiler where I'm using GADTs for my IR but standard data types for my everything else. I'm having trouble during the conversion from the old data type to the GADT. I've attempted to recreate the situation with a smaller/simplified language below.
To start with, I have the following data types:
data OldLVal = VarOL Int -- The nth variable. Can be used to construct a Temp later.
| LDeref OldLVal
data Exp = Var Int -- See above
| IntT Int32
| Deref Exp
data Statement = AssignStmt OldLVal Exp
| ...
I want to convert these into this intermediate form:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}
-- Note: this is a Phantom type
data Temp a = Temp Int
data Type = IntT
| PtrT Type
data Command where
Assign :: NewLVal a -> Pure a -> Command
...
data NewLVal :: Type -> * where
VarNL :: Temp a -> NewLVal a
DerefNL :: NewLVal ('PtrT ('Just a)) -> NewLVal a
data Pure :: Type -> * where
ConstP :: Int32 -> Pure 'IntT
ConstPtrP :: Int32 -> Pure ('PtrT a)
VarP :: Temp a -> Pure a
At this point, I just want to write a conversion from the old data type to the new GADT. For right now, I have something that looks like this.
convert :: Statement -> Either String Command
convert (AssignStmt oldLval exp) = do
newLval <- convertLVal oldLval -- Either String (NewLVal a)
pure <- convertPure exp -- Either String (Pure b)
-- return $ Assign newLval pure -- Obvious failure. Can't ensure a ~ b.
pure' <- matchType newLval pure -- Either String (Pure a)
return $ Assign newLval pure'
-- Converts Pure b into Pure a. Should essentially be a noop, but simply
-- proves that it is possible.
matchType :: NewLVal a -> Pure b -> Either String (Pure a)
matchType = undefined
I realized that I couldn't write convert trivially, so I attempted to solve the problem using this idea of matchType which acts as a proof that these two types are indeed equal. The question is: how do I actually write matchType? This would be much easier if I had fully dependent types (or so I'm told), but can I finish this code here?
An alternative to this would be to somehow provide newLval as an argument to convertPure, but I think that essentially is just attempting to use dependent types.
Any other suggestions are welcome.
If it helps, I also have a function that can convert an Exp or OldLVal to its type:
class Typed a where
typeOf :: a -> Type
instance Typed Exp where
...
instance Typed OldLVal where
...
EDIT:
Thanks to the excellent answers below, I've been able to finish writing this module.
I ended up using the singletons package mentioned below. It was a little strange at first, but I found it pretty reasonable to use after I started understanding what I was doing. However, I did run into one pitfall: The type of convertLVal and convertPure requires an existential to express.
data WrappedPure = forall a. WrappedPure (Pure a, SType a)
data WrappedLVal = forall a. WrappedLVal (NewLVal a, SType a)
convertPure :: Exp -> Either String WrappedPure
convertLVal :: OldLVal -> Either String WrappedLVal
This means that you'll have to unwrap that existential in convert, but otherwise, the answers below show you the way. Thanks so much once again.
You want to perform a comparison at runtime on some type level data (namely the Types by which your values are indexed). But by the time you run your code, and the values start to interact, the types are long gone. They're erased by the compiler, in the name of producing efficient code. So you need to manually reconstruct the type level data that was erased, using a value which reminds you of the type you'd forgotten you were looking at. You need a singleton copy of Type.
data SType t where
SIntT :: SType IntT
SPtrT :: SType t -> SType (PtrT t)
Members of SType look like members of Type - compare the structure of a value like SPtrT (SPtrT SIntT) with that of PtrT (PtrT IntT) - but they're indexed by the (type-level) Types that they resemble. For each t :: Type there's precisely one SType t (hence the name singleton), and because SType is a GADT, pattern matching on an SType t tells the type checker about the t. Singletons span the otherwise strictly-enforced separation between types and values.
So when you're constructing your typed tree, you need to track the runtime STypes of your values and compare them when necessary. (This basically amounts to writing a partially verified type checker.) There's a class in Data.Type.Equality containing a function which compares two singletons and tells you whether their indexes match or not.
instance TestEquality SType where
-- testEquality :: SType t1 -> SType t2 -> Maybe (t1 :~: t2)
testEquality SIntT SIntT = Just Refl
testEquality (SPtrT t1) (SPtrT t2)
| Just Refl <- testEquality t1 t2 = Just Refl
testEquality _ _ = Nothing
Applying this in your convert function looks roughly like this:
convert :: Statement -> Either String Command
convert (AssignStmt oldLval exp) = do
(newLval, newLValSType) <- convertLVal oldLval
(pure, pureSType) <- convertPure exp
case testEquality newLValSType pureSType of
Just Refl -> return $ Assign newLval pure'
Nothing -> Left "type mismatch"
There actually aren't a whole lot of dependently typed programs you can't fake up with TypeInType and singletons (are there any?), but it's a real hassle to duplicate all of your datatypes in both "normal" and "singleton" form. (The duplication gets even worse if you want to pass singletons around implicitly - see Hasochism for the details.) The singletons package can generate much of the boilerplate for you, but it doesn't really alleviate the pain caused by duplicating the concepts themselves. That's why people want to add real dependent types to Haskell, but we're a good few years away from that yet.
The new Type.Reflection module contains a rewritten Typeable class. Its TypeRep is GADT-like and can act as a sort of "universal singleton". But programming with it is even more awkward than programming with singletons, in my opinion.
matchType as written is not possible to implement, but the idea you are going for is definitely possible. Do you know about Data.Typeable? Typeable is a class that provides some basic reflective operations for inspecting types. To use it, you need a Typeable a constraint in scope for any type variable a you want to know about. So for matchType you would have
matchType :: (Typeable a, Typeable b) => NewLVal a -> Pure b -> Either String (Pure a)
It needs also to infect your GADTs any time you want to hide a type variable:
data Command where
Assign :: (Typeable a) => NewLVal a -> Pure a -> Command
...
But if you have the appropriate constraints in scope, you can use eqT to make type-safe runtime type comparisons. For example
-- using ScopedTypeVariables and TypeApplications
matchType :: forall a b. (Typeable a, Typeable b) => NewLVal a -> Pure b -> Either String (Pure b)
matchType = case eqT #a #b of
Nothing -> Left "types are not equal"
Just Refl -> {- in this scope the compiler knows that
a and b are the same type -}
Could you please show me how can I check if type of func is Tree or not, in code not in command page?
data Tree = Leaf Float | Gate [Char] Tree Tree deriving (Show, Eq, Ord)
func a = Leaf a
Well, there are a few answers, which zigzag in their answers to "is this possible".
You could ask ghci
ghci> :t func
func :: Float -> Tree
which tells you the type.
But you said in your comment that you are wanting to write
if func == Tree then 0 else 1
which is not possible. In particular, you can't write any function like
isTree :: a -> Bool
isTree x = if x :: Tree then True else False
because it would violate parametericity, which is a neat property that all polymorphic functions in Haskell have, which is explored in the paper Theorems for Free.
But you can write such a function with some simple generic mechanisms that have popped up; essentially, if you want to know the type of something at runtime, it needs to have a Typeable constraint (from the module Data.Typeable). Almost every type is Typeable -- we just use the constraint to indicate the violation of parametericity and to indicate to the compiler that it needs to pass runtime type information.
import Data.Typeable
import Data.Maybe (isJust)
data Tree = Leaf Float | ...
deriving (Typeable) -- we need Trees to be typeable for this to work
isTree :: (Typeable a) => a -> Bool
isTree x = isJust (cast x :: Maybe Tree)
But from my experience, you probably don't actually need to ask this question. In Haskell this question is a lot less necessary than in other languages. But I can't be sure unless I know what you are trying to accomplish by asking.
Here's how to determine what the type of a binding is in Haskell: take something like f a1 a2 a3 ... an = someExpression and turn it into f = \a1 -> \a2 -> \a3 -> ... \an -> someExpression. Then find the type of the expression on the right hand side.
To find the type of an expression, simply add a SomeType -> for each lambda, where SomeType is whatever the appropriate type of the bound variable is. Then use the known types in the remaining (lambda-less) expression to find its actual type.
For your example: func a = Leaf a turns into func = \a -> Leaf a. Now to find the type of \a -> Leaf a, we add a SomeType -> for the lambda, where SomeType is Float in this case. (because Leaf :: Float -> Tree, so if Leaf is applied to a, then a :: Float) This gives us Float -> ???
Now we find the type of the lambda-less expression Leaf (a :: Float), which is Tree because Leaf :: Float -> Tree. Now we can add substitute Tree for ??? to get Float -> Tree, the actual type of func.
As you can see, we did that all by just looking at the source code. This means that no matter what, func will always have that type, so there is no need to check whether or not it does. In fact, the compiler will throw out all information about the type of func when it compiles your code, and your code will still work properly because of type-checking. (The caveat to this (Typeable) is pointed out in the other answer)
TL;DR: Haskell is statically typed, so func always has the type Float -> Tree, so asking how to check whether that is true doesn't make sense.
It's written that Haskell tuples are simply a different syntax for algebraic data types. Similarly, there are examples of how to redefine value constructors with tuples.
For example, a Tree data type in Haskell might be written as
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node a (Tree a) (Tree a)
which could be converted to "tuple form" like this:
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node (a, Tree a, Tree a)
What is the difference between the Node value constructor in the first example, and the actual tuple in the second example? i.e. Node a (Tree a) (Tree a) vs. (a, Tree a, Tree a) (aside from just the syntax)?
Under the hood, is Node a (Tree a) (Tree a) just a different syntax for a 3-tuple of the appropriate types at each position?
I know that you can partially apply a value constructor, such as Node 5 which will have type: (Node 5) :: Num a => Tree a -> Tree a -> Tree a
You sort of can partially apply a tuple too, using (,,) as a function ... but this doesn't know about the potential types for the un-bound entries, such as:
Prelude> :t (,,) 5
(,,) 5 :: Num a => b -> c -> (a, b, c)
unless, I guess, you explicitly declare a type with ::.
Aside from syntactical specialties like this, plus this last example of the type scoping, is there a material difference between whatever a "value constructor" thing actually is in Haskell, versus a tuple used to store positional values of the same types are the value constructor's arguments?
Well, coneptually there indeed is no difference and in fact other languages (OCaml, Elm) present tagged unions exactly that way - i.e., tags over tuples or first class records (which Haskell lacks). I personally consider this to be a design flaw in Haskell.
There are some practical differences though:
Laziness. Haskell's tuples are lazy and you can't change that. You can however mark constructor fields as strict:
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node !a !(Tree a) !(Tree a)
Memory footprint and performance. Circumventing intermediate types reduces the footprint and raises the performance. You can read more about it in this fine answer.
You can also mark the strict fields with the the UNPACK pragma to reduce the footprint even further. Alternatively you can use the -funbox-strict-fields compiler option. Concerning the last one, I simply prefer to have it on by default in all my projects. See the Hasql's Cabal file for example.
Considering the stated above, if it's a lazy type that you're looking for, then the following snippets should compile to the same thing:
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node a (Tree a) (Tree a)
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node {-# UNPACK #-} !(a, Tree a, Tree a)
So I guess you can say that it's possible to use tuples to store lazy fields of a constructor without a penalty. Though it should be mentioned that this pattern is kinda unconventional in the Haskell's community.
If it's the strict type and footprint reduction that you're after, then there's no other way than to denormalize your tuples directly into constructor fields.
They're what's called isomorphic, meaning "to have the same shape". You can write something like
data Option a = None | Some a
And this is isomorphic to
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
meaning that you can write two functions
f :: Maybe a -> Option a
g :: Option a -> Maybe a
Such that f . g == id == g . f for all possible inputs. We can then say that (,,) is a data constructor isomorphic to the constructor
data Triple a b c = Triple a b c
Because you can write
f :: (a, b, c) -> Triple a b c
f (a, b, c) = Triple a b c
g :: Triple a b c -> (a, b, c)
g (Triple a b c) = (a, b, c)
And Node as a constructor is a special case of Triple, namely Triple a (Tree a) (Tree a). In fact, you could even go so far as to say that your definition of Tree could be written as
newtype Tree' a = Tree' (Maybe (a, Tree' a, Tree' a))
The newtype is required since you can't have a type alias be recursive. All you have to do is say that EmptyLeaf == Tree' Nothing and Node a l r = Tree' (Just (a, l, r)). You could pretty simply write functions that convert between the two.
Note that this is all from a mathematical point of view. The compiler can add extra metadata and other information to be able to identify a particular constructor making them behave slightly differently at runtime.
Learn You a Haskell creates a Tree Algebraic Data Type:
data Tree a = EmptyTree | Node a (Tree a) (Tree a) deriving (Show, Read, Eq)
My understanding is that a can be any type.
So I tried to create a treeInsert function that puts a Tree on the left or right side depending upon its Side value:
data Side = L | R
singletonTree :: a -> Tree a
singletonTree x = Node x EmptyTree EmptyTree
treeInsert :: a -> Tree a -> Tree a
treeInsert x EmptyTree = singletonTree x
treeInsert x#(L, _) (Node a left right) = Node a (treeInsert x left) right -- ERROR
treeInsert x#(R, _) (Node a left right) = Node a left (treeInsert x right)
But I got a compile-time error:
Couldn't match expected type `a' with actual type `(Side, t0)'
`a' is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for treeInsert :: a -> Tree a -> Tree a
at File.hs:10:15
In the pattern: (L, _)
In an equation for `treeInsert':
treeInsert x#(L, _) (Node a left right)
= Node a (treeInsert x left) right
Failed, modules loaded: none.
Perhaps a is still any type, but my pattern matching is invalid?
Just because a can be any type in a Tree a in general, doesn't mean it can be any type in a tree passed to treeInsert. You need to refine it to a type that actually allows the (L, _) and (R, _) pattern matches on it.
In fact, you can delete the type annotation on treeInsert and it will compile, after which you can ask GHCi with :t for the correct type (and then re-add that annotation if you want):
treeInsert :: (Side, t) -> Tree (Side, t) -> Tree (Side, t)
treeInsert :: a -> Tree a -> Tree a
So treeInsert is going to get a value of any type, and a tree containing the same type, and result in a tree of the same type.
Your equations try to match x against the patterns (L, _) and the (R, _). But wait; the type said I could call it with any type I liked. I should be able to call it like treeInsert ["this", "is", "a", "list", "of", "String"] EmptyTree. How can I match something of type [String] against a pattern like (L, _); that only works for types of the form (Side, t0) (for any type t0).
Type variables like a are extremely flexible when you call the function; you can use any value at all of any type you like, and the function will just work.
But you're not calling treeInsert, you're implementing it. For the implementer, type variables like a are extremely restrictive rather than flexible. This is an inevitable trade off1. The caller gets the freedom to pick anything they want; the implementer has to provide code that will work for anything the caller might choose (even types that the caller's program made up long after you finish implementing your function).
So you can't test it against a pattern like (L, _). Or any other meaningful pattern. Nor can you pass it to any "concrete" function, only to other functions which will accept any possible type. So in fact in treeInsert with type a -> Tree a -> Tree a, there's no way to use any property at all of the values you're inserting to decide where they'll go; for any property you might like to use to decide whether to put it in the left or right tree, there's no guarantee that the property will be meaningfully defined.
You'll either need to do your insertion based on something you can examine (like the structure of the tree that's also passed in), or use a type that provides less flexibility to the caller and actually gives you some information about the values you're inserting, such as treeInsert :: (Side, t) -> Tree (Side, t) -> Tree (Side, t), as Ørjan Johansen suggested.
1 And that very restrictiveness is actually where Haskell as a whole gets a lot of its power, since a lot of really useful and generic code relies on what functions with certain types can't do.