Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Higher-kinded generics in Java

Suppose I have the following class:

public class FixExpr {
  Expr<FixExpr> in;
}

Now I want to introduce a generic argument, abstracting over the use of Expr:

public class Fix<F> {
  F<Fix<F>> in;
}

But Eclipse doesn't like this:

The type F is not generic; it cannot be parametrized with arguments <Fix<F>>

Is this possible at all or have I overlooked something that causes this specific instance to break?

Some background information: in Haskell this is a common way to write generic functions; I'm trying to port this to Java. The type argument F in the example above has kind * -> * instead of the usual kind *. In Haskell it looks like this:

newtype Fix f = In { out :: f (Fix f) }
like image 438
Martijn Avatar asked May 18 '09 09:05

Martijn


6 Answers

I think what you're trying to do is simply not supported by Java generics. The simpler case of

public class Foo<T> {
    public T<String> bar() { return null; }
}

also does not compile using javac.

Since Java does not know at compile-time what T is, it can't guarantee that T<String> is at all meaningful. For example if you created a Foo<BufferedImage>, bar would have the signature

public BufferedImage<String> bar()

which is nonsensical. Since there is no mechanism to force you to only instantiate Foos with generic Ts, it refuses to compile.

like image 95
Zarkonnen Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 20:11

Zarkonnen


Maybe you can try Scala, which is a functional language running on JVM, that supports higher-kinded generics.


[ EDIT by Rahul G ]

Here's how your particular example roughly translates to Scala:

trait Expr[+A]

trait FixExpr {
  val in: Expr[FixExpr]
}

trait Fix[F[_]] {
  val in: F[Fix[F]]
}
like image 30
ZelluX Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 18:11

ZelluX


In order to pass a type parameter, the type definition has to declare that it accepts one (it has to be generic). Apparently, your F is not a generic type.

UPDATE: The line

F<Fix<F>> in;

declares a variable of type F which accepts a type parameter, the value of which is Fix, which itself accepts a type parameter, the value of which is F. F isn't even defined in your example. I think you may want

Fix<F> in;

That will give you a variable of type Fix (the type you did define in your example) to which you are passing a type parameter with value F. Since Fix is defined to accept a type parameter, this works.

UPDATE 2: Reread your title, and now I think you might be trying to do something similar to the approach presented in "Towards Equal Rights for Higher-Kinded Types" (PDF alert). If so, Java doesn't support that, but you might try Scala.

like image 4
Hank Gay Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 18:11

Hank Gay


Still, there are ways to encode higer-kinded generics in Java. Please, have a look at higher-kinded-java project.

Using this as a library, you can modify your code like this:

public class Fix<F extends Type.Constructor> {
    Type.App<F, Fix<F>> in;
}

You should probably add an @GenerateTypeConstructor annotation to your Expr class

@GenerateTypeConstructor
public class Expr<S> {
    // ...
}

This annotation generates ExprTypeConstructor class. Now you can process your Fix of Expr like this:

class Main {
    void run() {
        runWithTyConstr(ExprTypeConstructor.get);
    }

    <E extends Type.Constructor> void runWithTyConstr(ExprTypeConstructor.Is<E> tyConstrKnowledge) {
        Expr<Fix<E>> one = Expr.lit(1);
        Expr<Fix<E>> two = Expr.lit(2);

        // convertToTypeApp method is generated by annotation processor
        Type.App<E, Fix<E>> oneAsTyApp = tyConstrKnowledge.convertToTypeApp(one);
        Type.App<E, Fix<E>> twoAsTyApp = tyConstrKnowledge.convertToTypeApp(two);

        Fix<E> oneFix = new Fix<>(oneAsTyApp);
        Fix<E> twoFix = new Fix<>(twoAsTyApp);

        Expr<Fix<E>> addition = Expr.add(oneFix, twoFix);
        process(addition, tyConstrKnowledge);
    }

    <E extends Type.Constructor> void process(
            Fix<E> fixedPoint,
            ExprTypeConstructor.Is<E> tyConstrKnowledge) {

        Type.App<E, Fix<E>> inTyApp = fixedPoint.getIn();

        // convertToExpr method is generated by annotation processor
        Expr<Fix<E>> in = tyConstrKnowledge.convertToExpr(inTyApp);

        for (Fix<E> subExpr: in.getSubExpressions()) {
            process(subExpr, tyConstrKnowledge);
        }
    }

}
like image 2
Victor Nazarov Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 20:11

Victor Nazarov


It looks as if you may want something like:

public class Fix<F extends Fix<F>> {
    private F in;
}

(See the Enum class, and questions about its generics.)

like image 1
Tom Hawtin - tackline Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 18:11

Tom Hawtin - tackline


There is a roundabout way to encode higher kinded types in Java as pointed out by Victor. The gist of it is to introduce a type H<F, T> to encode F<T>. This can then be used to encode fixed point of functors (i.e. Haskell's Fix type):

public interface Functor<F, T> {
    <R> H<F, R> map(Function<T, R> f);
}

public static record Fix<F extends H<F, T> & Functor<F, T>, T>(F f) {
    public Functor<F, Fix<F, T>> unfix() {
        return (Functor<F, Fix<F, T>>) f;
    }
}

From here you can go on and implement catamorphisms over initial algebras:

public interface Algebra<F, T> extends Function<H<F, T>, T> {}

public static <F extends H<F, T> & Functor<F, T>, T> Function<Fix<F, T>, T> cata(Algebra<F, T> alg) {
    return fix -> alg.apply(fix.unfix().map(cata(alg)));
}

See my GitHub repo for working code including some example algebras. (Note, IDE's like IntelliJ struggle with the code although it compiles and runs just fine with Java 15).

like image 1
michid Avatar answered Nov 04 '22 20:11

michid