Personal tools

Type signatures as good style

From HaskellWiki

Revision as of 20:55, 8 July 2008 by Dbueno (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

E.g. the infered (most general) type for
asTypeOf
is
a -> b -> a
, but the purpose of
asTypeOf
is to unify the types of both operands. The more special signature
a -> a -> a
is what you want and it cannot be infered automatically.

Another example: 

emptyString :: ShowS
emptyString = id
Where
ShowS
is
String -> String
rather than
a -> a
.

I remember that for some type extensions the automatic inference fails. Examples?

Higher-order types, e.g., the type of
Control.Monad.ST.runST
: 
runST :: (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 Modulename directive. This will list all type signatures including the infered ones.
Retrieved from "http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_signatures_as_good_style"

Categories: FAQ | Style