Type signatures as good style
From HaskellWiki
(mention rank n types) |
(type inference not always decidable) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Where <hask>ShowS</hask> is <hask>String -> String</hask> rather than <hask>a -> a</hask>. | Where <hask>ShowS</hask> is <hask>String -> String</hask> rather than <hask>a -> a</hask>. | ||
| - | + | Even more, for some type extensions the automatic inference fails, | |
| - | + | e.g. the higher-order types used by <hask>Control.Monad.ST.runST</hask> | |
| - | + | ||
<haskell> | <haskell> | ||
runST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a | runST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a | ||
Revision as of 10:40, 25 December 2008
1 Question
Since Haskell type checkers can automatically derive types of expressions why shall I put explicit type signatures in my programs?
2 Answer
Using explicit type signatures is good style and GHC with option -Wall warns about missing signatures.
Signatures are a good documentation and not all Haskell program readers have a type inference algorithm built-in.
There are also some cases where the infered signature is too general for your purposes.
Another example:
emptyString :: ShowS emptyString = id
Even more, for some type extensions the automatic inference fails,
e.g. the higher-order types used byrunST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a
cannot be inferred in general, because the problem is undecidable. In GHC, they are enabled with the language pragma RankNTypes.
3 How to add a bunch of signatures?
Ok, this convinced me. How can I add all the signatures I did not write so far?
- You can start GHCi or Hugs and use the
:browse Modulenamedirective. This will list all type signatures including the infered ones.
Categories: FAQ | Style
