[Haskell-cafe] Converting MPTC+fundeps to type family / problem with polymorphic constant. Roles?

[Ryan Newton]

Oops, right after I sent I realized the answer ;-).  I needed to delete one
character to uncurry the type function.  That is:

   "type Future m"

instead of

   "type Future m a"

The fixed version is here:

https://github.com/iu-parfunc/lvars/blob/2b733d3044fde861e9c9b181258e7f9865afa204/haskell/par-classes/Control/Par/Class.hs#L60

I'm still not totally sure what thought process and design guidelines I
should internalize for next time... perhaps: "make sure type families have
the minimum number of arguments that they need".

Best,
  -Ryan



On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:

> The "abstract-par" class has used multi-parameter type classes with
> fundeps:
>
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/abstract-par-0.3.1/docs/Control-Monad-Par-Class.html#g:1
>
> And I'm trying to port it to use type families.  But the following
> combination seems to be completely unusable for me right now:
>
> class ParFuture m  => ParIVar m  where
>
>   new  :: forall a . m (Future m a)
>
>
> You can see the error when you try loading this file at this line:
>
>
> https://github.com/iu-parfunc/lvars/blob/b60cafb941ea8f2f333ada9b5206cd21211eae26/haskell/par-classes/Control/Par/Class.hs#L159
>
> "Future" is a type-function from the superclass.  I can't seem to use
> "new" in any way at any type without getting:
>
> Control/Par/Class.hs:161:9:
>     Could not deduce (Future m a ~ Future m a0)
>     from the context (ParIVar m, FutContents m a)
>       bound by the type signature for
>                  newFull_ :: (ParIVar m, FutContents m a) => a -> m (IVar
> m a)
>       at Control/Par/Class.hs:151:13-74
>     NB: `Future' is a type function, and may not be injective
>     The type variable `a0' is ambiguous
>     Possible fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
>     Expected type: m (IVar m a)
>       Actual type: m (Future m a0)
>     In the expression: (new :: m (IVar m a))
>     In a pattern binding: _ = (new :: m (IVar m a))
>     In an equation for `newFull_':
>         newFull_ a
>           = do { return undefined }
>           where
>               _ = (new :: m (IVar m a))
> Failed, modules loaded: none.
>
> Ok, so it seems like the type of "new" may just be intrinsically unusable.
>  There is no way, by constraining the output of the "new" function for the
> type system to infer what input to the Future type function was.  (Type
> function not reversable / injective.)
>
> So am I just stuck?  I don't want a dummy, unused argument just to
> communicate the type information to "new".  Is this just a place where *MPTC
> + fundeps works but type familes do not?  *Or is there some way that
> roles can save the day here?  Do I need to *say that the 'a' parameter
> has a representation role*?
>
> Thanks,
>   -Ryan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20131006/9074d885/attachment.htm>