Superclass Cycle via Associated Type
ekmett at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 10:33:30 CEST 2011
2011/7/23 Gábor Lehel <illissius at gmail.com>
> 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.
> To be completely explicit, I had:
> class (Immutable (Frozen t), Thawed (Frozen t) ~ t) => Mutable t where
> type Frozen t ...
> class (Mutable (Thawed t), Frozen (Thawed t) ~ t) => Immutable t where
> type Thawed t ...
I had a similar issue in my representable-tries package.
In there I had
type family Key (f :: * -> *) :: *
class Indexable f where
index :: f a -> Key f -> a
class Indexable f => Representable f where
tabulate :: (Key f -> a) -> f a
such that tabulate and index witness the isomorphism from f a to (Key f ->
So far no problem. But then to provide a Trie type that was transparent I
class (Representable (BaseTrie e), Traversable (BaseTrie e), Key (BaseTrie
e) ~ e) => HasTrie e where
type BaseTrie e :: * -> *
type (:->:) e = BaseTrie e
which I couldn't use prior to the new class constraints patch.
The reason I mention this is that my work around was to weaken matters a bit
class (Representable (BaseTrie e)) => HasTrie e where
type BaseTrie e :: * -> *
embedKey :: e -> Key (BaseTrie e)
projectKey :: Key (BaseTrie e) -> e
This dodged the need for superclass equality constraints by just requiring
me to supply the two witnesses to the isomorphism between e and Key
Moreover, in my case it helped me produce instances, because the actual
signatures involved about 20 more superclasses, and this way I could make
new HasTrie instances for newtype wrappers just by defining an embedding and
projection pair for some type I'd already defined.
But, it did require me to pay for a newtype wrapper which managed the
embedding and projection pairs.
newtype e :->: a = Trie (BaseTrie e a)
In your setting, perhaps something like:
type family Frozen t
type family Thawed t
class Immutable (Frozen t) => Mutable t where
thawedFrozen :: t -> Thawed (Frozen t)
unthawedFrozen :: Thawed (Frozen t) -> t
class Mutable (Thawed t) => Immutable t where
frozenThawed :: t -> Frozen (Thawed t)
unfrozenThawed :: Frozen (Thawed t) -> t
would enable you to explicitly program with the two isomorphisms, while
avoiding superclass constraints.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users