[Haskell-cafe] Re: type versus data declarations
alfonso.acosta at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 15:58:35 EDT 2007
On 6/8/07, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <egallego at babel.ls.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> I guess this is due to types like
> > type A a = Show a => a
> > type B a = Show a => a
You're right. This is not valid in the standard nor GHC.
> so if you do
> > f :: A a -> B b
> it should get translated to
> > f :: (Show a => a) -> (Show b => b)
> Which is not valid. I wonder if regrouping all the contexts in the left
> side should work:
> > f :: (Show a, Show b) => a -> b
Maybe it can be feasible to implement that behavior, but it clearly
doesn't work like that right now. Maybe some GHC guru reading this
could explain why?
You can get the effect you want by using existentials to pack the
constraint with the type
type Discard a = forall b. Show b => a -> b -> (a, String)
thus, a function f :: Discard a -> Discard b would expand to something like
f :: (forall b. Show b => a -> b -> (a, String)) -> (forall c. Show c
=> b -> c -> (c, String))
> > In addition you seem to be trying to pack a dictionary with the type
> > (something you cannot do in Haskell without existentials). This is
> Why? My first guess it that there's no way to translate that to system
> F, but if we look at 'type' as a macro, it could make sense.
No idea, but that's how it works (I've been hitting myself against the
wall to solve similar problems and existentials seem the only way to
> > just a guess, but it seems that a definition using existentials is
> > what you're looking for.
> > data FSet a = forall a. Show a => FSet (a -> Double)
> That would be
> > data FSet = forall a. Show a => FSet (a -> Double)
Yep, you're right. a is alredy universally quantified in the RHS. This
is probably what you're looking for:
type FSet a = forall a. Show a => FSet (a -> Double)
> I'm not looking yet for existential types, as then my functions will
> have to hold for every a, which turns out to be very inconvenient.
> The reason I don't want to use data, which works ok, is because I'd like
> to use FSet as a function, but not to write the type constraint in every
> function using as it is now.
I know, it can be a pain to have to carry the type class constraints
everywhere. Maybe the type redefinition using existentials I wrote
above can help. Otherwise I guess you'll have to cope with writting
the constraint in every function signature.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe