Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

How can I constrain a type (kind?) to product types only

Tags:

haskell

I'm looking into using monad comprehensions to represent SQL queries, and generate the appropriate SQL. At first glance, this is not a problem, it seems a good fit. But I have to restrict the types, which can form the monad to products only, no sums, and I can't think of a way to place such constraints.

I want to use the type checker to ensure that only types representable in SQL can be used.

I could, I suppose, use template haskell to derive the correct instances, and refuse to derive if the type does not fit, but I would prefer it done in the type level. Less chance for me introducing bugs due to my ignorance.

How could I do this? If yes, could you recommend some reading and/or code examples please.

Edit: Thanks, I've got some good paths to follow, which require more reading :) And here comes a long weekend.

like image 409
dikini Avatar asked Apr 05 '12 15:04

dikini


People also ask

What are type constraints?

A type constraint on a generic type parameter indicates a requirement that a type must fulfill in order to be accepted as a type argument for that type parameter. (For example, it might have to be a given class type or a subtype of that class type, or it might have to implement a given interface.)

What keyword allows you to put constraints on a generic type?

The where clause in a generic definition specifies constraints on the types that are used as arguments for type parameters in a generic type, method, delegate, or local function.

Can a generic class have multiple constraints?

Multiple interface constraints can be specified. The constraining interface can also be generic.

What does the generics constraint of type interface do?

Interface Type Constraint You can constrain the generic type by interface, thereby allowing only classes that implement that interface or classes that inherit from classes that implement the interface as the type parameter.


1 Answers

Unfortunately, this isn't really possible: a Monad must be fully polymorphic. It's the same reason you can't make Set a monad (the Ord constraint).

If you can deal with only having the result type meet the constraint, then you could have have runSQL :: (Product a) => SQL a -> IO a, or similar. In that case, just deriving the appropriate instances with Template Haskell is the way to go, or alternately, using the new GHC Generics; plain Haskell has no way to determine whether a type is composed of only products.

But I suspect you need to access the entire structure of the monadic computation, to translate it to SQL. Unfortunately, monads aren't very well-equipped to this, since they are plugged together with arbitrary Haskell functions, which you can't "look inside". Arrows are closer, and let you do more static analysis, but still have that pesky arr that, again, lets you sneak in arbitrary Haskell functions.

The most viable option for doing something like this is probably to write a Template Haskell splicer to parse the syntax you want; you can say $(sql [| [ (a,b) | a <- table1, b <- table2 |]) and have sql translate the AST to the corresponding SQL at compile-time If that syntax is too ugly, you write use a quasiquoter with haskell-src-meta, which would look like [sql| (a, b) | a <- table1, b <- table2 |].

You might also be interested in the generalised arrows extension, although it's probably overkill (and too experimental) for your purposes.

like image 52
ehird Avatar answered Sep 20 '22 14:09

ehird