[Haskell] Partially applied type class functions
govereau at eecs.harvard.edu
Sat Aug 6 12:05:12 EDT 2005
Thanks alot for the clarifications. If I understand correctly, I ran
into the monomorphism restriction because of the constraint on the
type variable. The Haskell report says this in Section 4.5.5:
In addition, the constrained type variables of a restricted
declaration group may not be generalized in the generalization step
for that group.
Thus, this is perfectly fine:
> f1 :: Int -> a -> String
> f1 i a = ""
> x = let g = f1 1 in (g 1, g "a")
Whereas this definition, with the additional (Show a) constraint, runs
in to the monomorphism restriction:
> f2 :: Show a => Int -> a -> String
> f2 i a = show a
> y = let g = f2 1 in (g 1, g "a")
No instance for (Num [Char])
arising from the literal `1' at Syntax.lhs:16:24
Probable fix: add an instance declaration for (Num [Char])
In the first argument of `g', namely `1'
In the definition of `y': y = let g = f2 1 in (g 1, g "a")
I think my original program was a case similar to this last one.
Thanks again for the quick response.
On Aug 05, Roberto Zunino wrote:
> Paul Govereau wrote:
> >>instance AbSyn Constraint where
> >> subst e n constr =
> >> let sub = subst e n -- :: AbSyn a => a -> a
> >> in case constr
> >> of Zero expr -> Zero (sub expr)
> >> AndL cs -> AndL (sub cs)
> >It looks sort of like sub is being monomorphised -- or something?
> I think you just hit the monomorphism restriction. For the details, see:
> http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html - Sect. 4.5.5
> Possible solutions for your specific case are:
> 1) add an explicit type signature for sub
> let sub :: AbSyn a => a -> a
> sub = subst e n
> in ...
> 2) eta-expand sub, so its definition becomes a function binding
> let sub c = subst e n c
> in ...
> Roberto Zunino.
More information about the Haskell