Can a class define a default superclass function?
Graham Klyne
gk@ninebynine.org
Thu, 01 May 2003 16:00:35 +0100
It appears that it is not possible for a subclass to define a default
for one of its superclass functions.
In the example below, simply trying to declare the default method for (==)
results in
the error 'No member "==" in class "Pair"', which I think is consistent
with [1].
But trying to include a signature for (==) in the specification of Pair
results in a type error:
Inferred type is not general enough
*** Expression : eqPair
*** Expected type : Pair a b c => a b c -> a b c -> Bool
*** Inferred type : Pair a (b c d) (e f g) => a (b c d) (e f g) -> a (b
c d) (e f g) -> Bool
which also makes sense as (I assume) the new type signature for (==) is
being picked up when using (==) to compare the component values.
The closest I can see is to declare (say) eqPair as below, then define
(==) = eqPair
for each instance (as below). Is this a genuine restriction, or is there
some way to avoid this?
#g
--
[1] http://haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#sect4.3.1
Example code:
[[
-- Can a class define a default superclass method?
class (Eq (a k v), Eq k, Eq v) => Pair a k v where
newPair :: (k,v) -> a k v
getPair :: a k v -> (k,v)
eqPair :: a k v -> a k v -> Bool
eqPair p1 p2 = (k1==k2) && (v1==v2) where
(k1,v1) = (getPair p1)
(k2,v2) = (getPair p2)
-- or just:
-- eqPair p1 p2 = (getPair p1) == (getPair p2)
-- But can't say this:
-- (==) :: a k v -> a k v -> Bool
-- (==) = eqPair
-- The simplest way I can see to define this is to define
-- (==) per-instance using the default eqPair method of
-- the Pair class, thus:
newtype MyPair k v = P1 (k,v)
instance (Eq k, Eq v) => Pair MyPair k v where
newPair (x,y) = P1 (x,y)
getPair (P1 (x,y)) = (x,y)
instance (Eq k, Eq v) => Eq (MyPair k v) where
(==) = eqPair
]]
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E