Personal tools

Quantified contexts

From HaskellWiki

Revision as of 10:47, 14 January 2009 by Malcolm (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

1 The problem

The base library currently contains (essentially) the following classes:

class Monoid a where
       mempty  :: a
       mappend :: a -> a -> a
class MonadPlus m where
       mzero :: m a
       mplus :: m a -> m a -> m a
class ArrowPlus c where
       arrowZero :: c a b
       arrowPlus :: c a b -> c a b -> c a b

If you look closely 'these are all the same. The only difference is in the superclasses and in the arity of the argument. You will find that any class that is an instance of MonadPlus can be made an instance of Monoid. In fact, some types such as lists, are indeed instances of both classes.

This leads to duplication of code and of extra names for what is essentially the same thing.

When should you use
mappend
instead of
mplus
, and when shouldn't you? This exact same situation is also found in the
Data.Typeable
module, which has the classes:
class Typeable a where
       typeOf :: a -> TypeRep
class Typeable1 t where
       typeOf1 :: t a -> TypeRep
class Typeable2 t where
       typeOf2 :: t a b -> TypeRep
-- etc.

2 Chained instances

This Typeable library comes with instances

instance (Typeable2 t, Typeable a) => Typable  (t a)
instance (Typeable3 t, Typeable a) => Typable2 (t a)
-- etc.
Which means that only one instance of
typeableN
has to be written for a type constructor with arity n. We could do the same for
Monoid
. The
MonadPlus
and
ArrowPlus
classes can not be used for this purpose, because they require
Monad
and
Arrow
superclasses. But we could add
Monoid1
,
Monoid2
, etc.
class Monoid2 t where
       mempty2  :: t a
       mappend2 :: t a -> t a -> t a
class Monoid3 t where
       mempty3  :: t a b
       mappend3 :: t a b -> t a b -> t a b
instance Monoid2 t => Monoid (t a) where
       mempty  = mempty2
       mappend = mappend2
MonadPlus
can then be a class alias or simply a subclass of both
Monad
and
Monoid2
.
class (Monad m, Monoid2 m) => MonadPlus m

A big disadvantage of these instances is that it is an all or nothing aproach.

It is no longer possible to declare an
instance Monoid (t a)
directly, because it overlaps with the instance using
Monoid2
. Usually this is not a big problem, but it also forces the parameter of the type constructor to have kind
*
and there can't be constraints on it.

For example there is currently an instance

instance Ord k => Monoid (Map k v)

This would become imposible, because the instance would need be

instance Monoid2 Map -- we need Ord

3 Quantified contexts

An alternative would be a small extension of the Haskell language to allow quantifiers in contexts. Where we now write

function :: (Class a, Another (t a)) => Type a

We would also allow

function :: (forall b. Ctx => SomeClass b) => Type

The meaning is simple, to satisfy this context, an instance

instance Ctx => SomeClass b

is needed (or a more general one).

We can use these quantified contexts in the
Monoid
example as:
class (Monad m, forall a. Monoid (m a)) => MonadPlus m

or without the superflous extra class, for example

guard :: (Monad m, forall a. Monoid (m a)) => Bool -> m ()

The compiler will never infer a quantified context; the above type is not the most general type of guard. If you gave no type signature the compiler would infer

guard :: (Monad m, Monoid (m ())) => Bool -> m ()

4 Response from SimonPJ

I didn't see how Section 3 addressed the issues raised in Sections 1 and 2. For example, to avoid the cascade of `Typeable2`, `Typeable3` etc classes the solution is presumably polymorphism at the kind level. (Tim Sheard's language Omega has this.)

Still, I recognise the merit of quantification in contexts. Indeed, Ralf Hinze and I suggested it back in 2000 in Section 7 of [[http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/derive.htm Derivable type classes]]. (This section is rather independent of the rest of the paper.)

However, attractive as it is, it's quite a big step to add something akin to local instance declarations. Our ICFP'08 paper [[http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/assoc-types/index.htm Type checking with open type functions]] relies rather crucially on not having such local instances. (We've managed to simplify the algorithm quite a bit since then, but it still relies on that assumption.)

So I'm not sure I see how to make quantified contexts compatible with type functions, and all the other stuff in Haskell. But their lack is clearly a wart, and one that may become more pressing.

Meanwhile, clarifying the proposal would be a good thing, even if it's not adopted right away.