[Haskell-cafe] Capitalization and associated type families
Brian Hulley
brianh at metamilk.com
Mon Aug 4 18:04:40 EDT 2008
Jonathan Cast wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 19:51 +0100, Brian Hulley wrote:
>> For example, why is there any distinction between a type "variable" and
>> a type "constant"?
>>
>> forall a b. (a -> b) -> List a -> List b
>>
>> Now this begs the question: why does "List" need to start with a
>> capital? (supposing that quantifiers were always written explicitly)
>
> AFAIK, it doesn't; the variable/constant distinction is just there to
> let the implementation put the foralls in for you.
Hi Jonathan - thanks - this confirms what I've been thinking. However
consider:
class Foo a where
f :: a -> b -> (a, b)
Here there is no capitalization distinction in the type of (f) but the
implementation can still insert the "forall b." since (a) is already in
scope. Therefore similarly, if type constructors like "List" were
instead written using lowercase, since they would already be in scope it
would be clear even without explicit quantifiers that (a) and (b), but
not (list), were to be quantified in the type of (map) (assuming of
course that there was no top level data decl for (a) or (b)).
> Similarly, if we had
> explicit foralls on equations, we could say
>
> forall n x xn. drop (n+1) (x:xn) = drop n xn
>
> but
>
> forall n. drop n nil = nil
>
> and it would be perfectly clear that `nil' in the latter case was a
> constructor.
Actually I quite like the above because it shows that pattern matching
can be understood in terms of universally quantified predicates.
Regarding the verbosity, patterns are something of a special case since
variables (that are introduced in the pattern) can only occur once and
there is no need to have higher rank quantification in value patterns
(disregarding explicit tests for _|_). Therefore special syntax could be
used to make the above shorter e.g. borrowing the '?' from Felix
(http://felix.sourceforge.net/doc/tutorial/introduction/en_flx_tutorial_top.html
(section 2.11/2.17 etc)):
drop (?n + 1) (_ : ?xn) = drop n xn
drop ?n nil = nil
(where glued prefix binds tighter than application).
>
> Of course, if you want to introduce this rule, you'd better start out
> with it and be consistent --- require every variable to be explicitly
> brought into scope. I think you'd find it pretty annoying after trying
> to program in your new language for a while, though.
>
I agree that there are many good points in favour of Haskell's use of a
case distinction, not the least being that it gives definite guidance on
when to use lower or upper case identifiers and therefore avoids the
mess you find in C++ programs where every programmer has their own
private conventions which can lead to confusion and useless debate.
However it still seems to me that the case distinction, at least on the
level of type constructors, becomes problematic and possibly
inconsistent especially if I consider the effects of trying to
incorporate something like the ML module system as well as type classes.
(For example the Moby language (http://moby.cs.uchicago.edu/ ), a
possible successor to SML, uses capitalization for type constructors
similar to Haskell which means that type parameters in functor
applications must be uppercase, which conflicts with the use of
lowercase type params for classes which are a special kind of functor...
(Moby itself doesn't encounter any difficulty since it doesn't have type
classes)).
Best regards,
Brian.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list