Superclass Cycle via Associated Type
Ryan Trinkle
ryan.trinkle at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 04:47:20 CEST 2011
My situation is fairly similar to Gabor's, and, like him, I was able to make
do with an equality superclass. However, instead of combining two classes,
I found that I needed to add a third.
My concept here is to create two monads which share much of their
functionality, but not all of it. Specifically, one of them is "high" and
one is "low". Values of type "Low" encapsulate computations in the low
monad, and values of type "High" encapsulate values in the high monad. Both
low and high monads can *create* Low and High values and *execute* Low
values, but only the high monad can *execute* High values.
So, what I'd like to write is:
data High a
data Low a
class (Monad m, MonadLow (LowM m), MonadHigh (HighM m)) => MonadLow m where
execLow :: Low a -> m a
type LowM m :: * -> *
mkLow :: LowM m a -> m (Low a)
type HighM m :: * -> *
mkHigh :: HighM m a -> m (High a)
class MonadLow m => MonadHigh m where
execHigh :: High a -> m a
data L a
data H a
instance Monad L
instance MonadLow L where
type LowM L = L
type HighM L = H
instance Monad H
instance MonadLow H where
type LowM H = L
type HighM H = H
instance MonadHigh H
Of course, this has a superclass cycle. Instead, I can write:
...
class Monad m => MonadLow m where
...
class (MonadHigh m, MonadLow (LowM m), HighM m ~ m, HighM (LowM m) ~ m, LowM
(LowM m) ~ LowM m) => MonadHigh' m where {}
Then I can use MonadHigh' wherever I might have instead used MonadHigh, and
achieve roughly the result I was looking for. However, it doesn't seem like
a very clean definition to me.
That being said, I haven't found any problem with using the MonadHigh'
approach, although I've just recently started investigating it.
Ryan
2011/7/22 Dan Doel <dan.doel at gmail.com>
> 2011/7/22 Gábor Lehel <illissius at gmail.com>:
> > Yeah, this is pretty much what I ended up doing. As I said, I don't
> > think I lose anything in expressiveness by going the MPTC route, I
> > just think the two separate but linked classes way reads better. So
> > it's just a "would be nice" thing. Do recursive equality superclasses
> > make sense / would they be within the realm of the possible to
> > implement?
>
> Those equality superclasses are not recursive in the same way, as far
> as I can tell. The specifications for classes require that there is no
> chain:
>
> C ... => D ... => E ... => ... => C ...
>
> However, your example just had (~) as a context for C, but C is not
> required by (~). And the families involved make no reference to C,
> either. A fully desugared version looks like:
>
> type family Frozen a :: *
> type family Thawed a :: *
>
> class (..., Thawed (Frozen t) ~ t) => Mutable t where ...
>
> I think this will be handled if you use a version where equality
> superclasses are allowed.
>
> -- Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20110722/37903059/attachment.htm>
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users
mailing list