I need to establish ordering between * -> *
types based on that each member of one type can be represented by another. This is a homomorphism.
The problem is that I can define the transitivity of the !<=!
relation, but the type checker cannot figure it out. It is also very ambiguous, Identity !<=! Maybe
could be derived from Identity !<=! Maybe
or Identity !<=! Identity !<=! Maybe
, ... Each derivation comes with a different (but equivalent) definition for repr
.
So I'm looking for other ways to create a reflexive and transitive relationship.
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables, TypeOperators, MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances, AllowAmbiguousTypes, OverlappingInstances #-}
import Control.Monad.Identity
import Data.Maybe
class x !<=! y where
repr :: x a -> y a
instance x !<=! x where
repr = id
instance Identity !<=! Maybe where
repr = return . runIdentity
instance Maybe !<=! [] where
repr = maybeToList
instance (x !<=! y, y !<=! z) => x !<=! z where
repr = r2 . r1
where r1 :: x a -> y a
r1 = repr
r2 :: y a -> z a
r2 = repr
note: I tried this on GHC 7.8. You may have to remove AllowAmbiguousTypes
.
Edit: I would like to do something like repr (Identity 3 :: Identity Int) :: [Int]
Haskell also incorporates polymorphic types---types that are universally quantified in some way over all types. Polymorphic type expressions essentially describe families of types. For example, (forall a)[a] is the family of types consisting of, for every type a, the type of lists of a.
The Ord class is used for totally ordered datatypes. Instances of Ord can be derived for any user-defined datatype whose constituent types are in Ord. The declared order of the constructors in the data declaration determines the ordering in derived Ord instances.
In Haskell, every statement is considered as a mathematical expression and the category of this expression is called as a Type. You can say that "Type" is the data type of the expression used at compile time. To learn more about the Type, we will use the ":t" command.
Type and data type refer to exactly the same concept. The Haskell keywords type and data are different, though: data allows you to introduce a new algebraic data type, while type just makes a type synonym. See the Haskell wiki for details.
The problem is that we can't get GHC to perform a general graph search for instances. In this particular case it would be even nice if GHC could perform a shortest path algorithm, since our function gets slower with each intermediate representation in the path.
However, we can make the search unambiguous at each graph node, by restricting the number of outgoing edges to one, and GHC can handle that. This means that each type has at most one direct representation:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances, TypeOperators, MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies, UndecidableInstances, OverlappingInstances #-}
import Control.Monad.Identity
import Data.Maybe
class DirectRepr x y | x -> y where
directRepr :: x a -> y a
We can build a graph with DirectRepr
:
instance DirectRepr Identity Maybe where
directRepr (Identity a) = Just a
instance DirectRepr Maybe [] where
directRepr = maybeToList
and then walk it with a wrapper class <=
:
class x <= y where
repr :: x a -> y a
instance x <= x where
repr = id
instance (DirectRepr x y, y <= z) => x <= z where
repr = repr . directRepr
main = print (repr (Identity ()) :: [()]) -- [()]
It works with cyclic graphs, too, since the search stops when we hit the reflexivity case for <=
(thanks to OverlappingInstances
):
data A a
data B a
data C a
instance DirectRepr A B where directRepr = undefined
instance DirectRepr B C where directRepr = undefined
instance DirectRepr C A where directRepr = undefined
foo :: A Int
foo = repr (undefined :: B Int)
If the starting type leads to a cycle, and we don't have the endpoint type in the cycle, the search gets stuck and we get a context overflow. This shouldn't bother us overmuch, since this makes the context overflow error equivalent to a plain "no instance" error.
bar :: Maybe Int -- context overflow
bar = repr (undefined :: A Int)
This may not be possible to do this only by inference. I made another solution using Template Haskell, generating all instances that can be derived from simpler ones. The usage of the library looks like the following:
$(makeMonadRepr ''Identity ''Maybe [e| return . runIdentity |])
$(makeMonadRepr ''Identity ''IO [e| return . runIdentity |])
$(makeMonadRepr ''Maybe [t| MaybeT IO |] [e| MaybeT . return |])
$(makeMonadRepr ''IO [t| MaybeT IO |] [e| MaybeT . liftM Just |])
$(makeMonadRepr ''Maybe TH.ListT [e| maybeToList |])
$(makeMonadRepr TH.ListT [t| Trans.ListT IO |] [e| Trans.ListT . return |])
$(makeMonadRepr ''IO [t| Trans.ListT IO |] [e| Trans.ListT . liftM (:[]) |])
$(makeMonadRepr [t| MaybeT IO |] [t| Trans.ListT IO |] [e| Trans.ListT . liftM maybeToList . runMaybeT |])
This generates all instances that can be derived from reflexivity or transitivity. After inserting a new node with calling makeMonadRepr
all the derivable edges are created, so a structure like this can be extended by the user.
This may not be the most elegant solution, so I'm open for other ideas.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With