Personal tools

GHC/Type system

From HaskellWiki

< GHC(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
== Type system extensions in GHC ==
+
= Type system extensions in GHC =
   
 
GHC comes with a rather large collection of type-system extensions (beyond Haskell 98). They are all documented in the [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-extensions.html user manual], but this page is a place to record observations, notes, and suggestions on them.
 
GHC comes with a rather large collection of type-system extensions (beyond Haskell 98). They are all documented in the [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-extensions.html user manual], but this page is a place to record observations, notes, and suggestions on them.
   
=== Overlapping instances ===
+
== Overlapping instances ==
   
 
Here an [http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/glasgow-haskell-bugs/2006-July/006808.html interesting message] about the interaction of existential types and overlapping instances.
 
Here an [http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/glasgow-haskell-bugs/2006-July/006808.html interesting message] about the interaction of existential types and overlapping instances.
   
=== Indexed data types and indexed newtypes ===
+
== Indexed data types and indexed newtypes ==
   
 
[[GHC/Indexed_types|Indexed data types]] (including associated data types) are a very recent addition to GHC's type system extensions that is not yet included in the user manual. To use the extension, you need to obtain a version of GHC from [http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/GettingTheSources its source repository].
 
[[GHC/Indexed_types|Indexed data types]] (including associated data types) are a very recent addition to GHC's type system extensions that is not yet included in the user manual. To use the extension, you need to obtain a version of GHC from [http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/GettingTheSources its source repository].
   
  +
== Stand-alone deriving clauses ==
  +
  +
Bjorn Bringert has recently implemented "stand-alone deriving" declarations, documented briefly here [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/users_guide/type-extensions.html#stand-alone-deriving]. There are a few loose ends which I summarise here:
  +
  +
* The current syntax is
  +
<haskell>
  +
deriving Show for T
  +
</haskell>
  +
There seems to be a consensus that this would be better:
  +
<haskell>
  +
derive instance Show T
  +
</haskell>
  +
: so that it looks more like a regular instance declaration. Here <hask>derive</hask> is not a new keyword; it's a "special-id", distinguished by the following <hask>instance</hask> keyword.
  +
  +
* Because it looks like a regular instance declaration, it would arguably be reasonable to require the programmer to supply the context. It seems odd to say:
  +
<haskell>
  +
derive instance Show (T a)
  +
</haskell>
  +
: and perhaps cleaner to say
  +
<haskell>
  +
derive instance Show a => Show (T a)
  +
</haskell>
  +
: (At the moment, the compiler figures out the appropriate context, but at some point that automation may run out of steam.)
  +
  +
* GHC's "newtype deriving mechanism" (see [http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/users_guide/type-extensions.html#newtype-deriving]) should obviously work in a standalone deriving setting too. But perhaps it can be generalised a little. Currently you can only say
  +
<haskell>
  +
deriving C a for Foo
  +
</haskell>
  +
: (where Foo is the newtype), and get an instance for <hask>(C a Foo)</hask>. But what if you want and instance for <hask>C Foo a</hask>, where the new type is not the last parameter. You can't do that at the moment. However, even with the new instance-like syntax, it's not clear to me how to signal the type to be derived. Consider
  +
<haskell>
  +
newtype Foo = F Int
  +
newtype Bar = B Bool
  +
derive instance C Foo Bar
  +
</haskell>
  +
: Which of these thee instances do we want?
  +
<haskell>
  +
instance C Foo Bool => C Foo Bar
  +
instance C Int Bar => C Foo Bar
  +
instance C Int Bool => C Foo Bar
  +
</haskell>
  +
: The obvious way to signal this is to give the instance context (just as above). This is perhaps another reason for having an explicit instance context in a standalone deriving declaration.
  +
  +
* Incidentally, notice that the third of the alternatives in the previous bullet unwraps two newtypes simultaneously. John Meacham suggested this example:
  +
<haskell>
  +
class SetLike m k where
  +
instance SetLike IntSet Int where
  +
  +
newtype Id = Id Int
  +
newtype IdSet = IdSet IntSet
  +
  +
derive instance SetLike IntSet Int => SetLike IdSet Id
  +
</haskell>
  +
  +
* Suppose two modules, M1 and M2 both contain an identical standalone deriving declaration
  +
<haskell>
  +
derive Show T
  +
</haskell>
  +
: Then, can you import M1 and M2 into another module X and use show on values of type T, or will you get an overlapping instance error? Since both instances are derived in the very same way, their code must be identical, so arguably we can choose either. (There is some duplicated code of course.)
 
-----------------------
 
-----------------------

Revision as of 09:03, 1 November 2006

Contents

1 Type system extensions in GHC

GHC comes with a rather large collection of type-system extensions (beyond Haskell 98). They are all documented in the user manual, but this page is a place to record observations, notes, and suggestions on them.

1.1 Overlapping instances

Here an interesting message about the interaction of existential types and overlapping instances.

1.2 Indexed data types and indexed newtypes

Indexed data types (including associated data types) are a very recent addition to GHC's type system extensions that is not yet included in the user manual. To use the extension, you need to obtain a version of GHC from its source repository.

1.3 Stand-alone deriving clauses

Bjorn Bringert has recently implemented "stand-alone deriving" declarations, documented briefly here [1]. There are a few loose ends which I summarise here:

  • The current syntax is
  deriving Show for T

There seems to be a consensus that this would be better:

  derive instance Show T
so that it looks more like a regular instance declaration. Here
derive
is not a new keyword; it's a "special-id", distinguished by the following
instance
keyword.
  • Because it looks like a regular instance declaration, it would arguably be reasonable to require the programmer to supply the context. It seems odd to say:
  derive instance Show (T a)
and perhaps cleaner to say
  derive instance Show a => Show (T a)
(At the moment, the compiler figures out the appropriate context, but at some point that automation may run out of steam.)
  • GHC's "newtype deriving mechanism" (see [2]) should obviously work in a standalone deriving setting too. But perhaps it can be generalised a little. Currently you can only say
  deriving C a for Foo
(where Foo is the newtype), and get an instance for
(C a Foo)
. But what if you want and instance for
C Foo a
, where the new type is not the last parameter. You can't do that at the moment. However, even with the new instance-like syntax, it's not clear to me how to signal the type to be derived. Consider
  newtype Foo = F Int
  newtype Bar = B Bool
  derive instance C Foo Bar
Which of these thee instances do we want?
  instance C Foo Bool => C Foo Bar
  instance C Int Bar  => C Foo Bar
  instance C Int Bool => C Foo Bar
The obvious way to signal this is to give the instance context (just as above). This is perhaps another reason for having an explicit instance context in a standalone deriving declaration.
  • Incidentally, notice that the third of the alternatives in the previous bullet unwraps two newtypes simultaneously. John Meacham suggested this example:
  class SetLike m k  where 
  instance SetLike IntSet Int where
 
  newtype Id = Id Int
  newtype IdSet = IdSet IntSet
 
  derive instance SetLike IntSet Int => SetLike IdSet Id
  • Suppose two modules, M1 and M2 both contain an identical standalone deriving declaration
  derive Show T
Then, can you import M1 and M2 into another module X and use show on values of type T, or will you get an overlapping instance error? Since both instances are derived in the very same way, their code must be identical, so arguably we can choose either. (There is some duplicated code of course.)