Is there some way (any way) to implement constraints in type classes?
As an example of what I'm talking about, suppose I want to implement a Group as a type class. So a type would be a group if there are three functions:
class Group a where
product :: a -> a -> a
inverse :: a -> a
identity :: a
But those are not any functions, but they must be related by some constraints. For example:
product a identity = a
product a (inverse a) = identity
inverse identity = identity
etc...
Is there a way to enforce this kind of constraint in the definition of the class so that any instance would automatically inherit it? As an example, suppose I'd like to implement the C2 group, defined by:
data C2 = E | C
instance Group C2 where
identity = E
inverse C = C
This two definitions uniquely determines C2 (the constraints above define all possible operations - in fact, C2 is the only possible group with two elements because of the constraints). Is there a way to make this work?
Type constraints (Num a) => is a type constraint, which restricts the type a to instances of the class Num .
What's a typeclass in Haskell? A typeclass defines a set of methods that is shared across multiple types. For a type to belong to a typeclass, it needs to implement the methods of that typeclass. These implementations are ad-hoc: methods can have different implementations for different types.
The second line, deriving (Eq, Show) , is called the deriving clause; it specifies that we want the compiler to automatically generate instances of the Eq and Show classes for our Pair type. The Haskell Report defines a handful of classes for which instances can be automatically generated.
The Eq typeclass provides an interface for testing for equality. Any type where it makes sense to test for equality between two values of that type should be a member of the Eq class. All standard Haskell types except for IO (the type for dealing with input and output) and functions are a part of the Eq typeclass.
Is there a way to enforce this kind of constraint?
No. Lots of people have been asking for it, including the illustrious Tony Hoare, but nothing appears on the horizon yet.
This problem would be an excellent topic of discussion for the Haskell Prime group. If anyone has floated a good proposal, it is probably to be found there.
P.S. This is an important problem!
In some cases you can specify the properties using QuickCheck. This is not exactly enforcement, but it lets you provide generic tests that all instances should pass. For instance with Eq you might say:
prop_EqNeq x y = (x == y) == not (x != y)
Of course it is still up to the instance author to call this test.
Doing this for the monad laws would be interesting.
Type classes can contain definitions as well as declarations. Example:
class Equality a where
(?=), (!=) :: a -> a -> Bool
a ?= b = not (a != b)
a != b = not (a ?= b)
instance Eq a => Equality a where
(?=) = (==)
test = (1 != 2)
You can also specify special constraints (let's call them laws) in plain Haskell, but it's not guaranteed that the compiler will use them. A common example are monadic laws
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