Improving the instances of Data.Functor.{Product,Sum}
Oleg Grenrus
oleg.grenrus at iki.fi
Sat Mar 14 15:43:26 UTC 2020
QuantifiedConstraints are not buggy, but they are not _complete_
(I do mean that as "buggy" = not sound, properly expressive = complete).
There are at least three issues:
1. Instance definition need UndecidableInstances (in my opinion this is
big deal)
2. Instances are not elegant (easy to write, but not elegant).
3. QuantifiedConstraints resists to be abstracted over
See https://gist.github.com/phadej/266d68cf5cc1229c3548b7965f4335f8 for
the standalone code file.
For the reasons below I wouldn't recommend using QuantifiedConstraints.
I very like them, but I'm not convinced the feature is ready for "prime
time".
To put into perspective, I think code classes of `singletons` are more
ready to
be included in `base` than changing instances of Data.Functor.Sum and
.Product.
I do use singletons in my code more than QuantifiedConstraints. :)
I'm very worried how this change will affect libraries like `free` and
`recursion-schemes` and what builds on top of them.
This is not only change to `base`, it strongly guides how downstream
libraries should be written (or changed) as well.
On the other hand, I don't feel strongly about
instance (Eq (f a), Eq (g a)) => Eq (Product f g a)
Yet, in the light of `free` it is "a step backwards".
See https://hackage.haskell.org/package/free-5/changelog
---
Simple example with `newtype Fix f = Fix (f (Fix f))`
class Eq1 f where
liftEq :: (a -> b -> Bool) -> f a -> f b -> Bool
class Eq1 f => Ord1 f where
liftCompare :: (a -> b -> Ordering) -> f a -> f b -> Ordering
instance Eq1 f => Eq (Fix f) where
(==) = eq where eq (Fix x) (Fix y) = liftEq eq x y
instance Ord1 f => Ord (Fix f) where
compare = cmp where cmp (Fix x) (Fix y) = liftCompare cmp x y
works. It's boilerplate, but it's already written.
However, if we want to use QuantifiedConstraints,
then we
1. need UndecidableInstances
2. and then the code turns out to be less elegant:
instance (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) => Eq (Fix f) where
(==) = eq where eq (Fix x) (Fix y) = x == y
instance (forall x. Ord x => Ord (f x)) => Ord (Fix f) where
compare = cmp where cmp (Fix x) (Fix y) = compare x y
fails to compile with
GHCi, version 8.8.3: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Ord1.hs, interpreted )
Ord1.hs:28:10: error:
• Could not deduce (Ord x)
arising from the superclasses of an instance declaration
we need to write Ord instance differently
instance (forall x. Ord x => Ord (f x), forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x))
=> Ord (Fix f) where
compare = cmp where cmp (Fix x) (Fix y) = compare x y
This _cannot_ be made to work:
forall x. Ord x => Ord (f x)
doesn't entail
forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)
If you try to write defaultLiftEq using liftCompare
defaultLiftEq :: Ord1 f => (a -> b -> Bool) -> f a -> f b -> Bool
defaultLiftEq eq x y = EQ == liftCompare _problem_ x y
then you will se a problem.
---
Third issue is that We cannot abstract over QuantifiedConstraints.
Take an example `Dict`. We can use `Dict` for various things.
data Dict :: (k -> Constraint) -> k -> * where
Dict :: c a => Dict c a
It nicely uses PolyKinds extension so we can write:
eqInt :: Dict Eq Int
eqInt = Dict
eq1List :: Dict Eq1 []
eq1List = Dict
And we can use Dict to *manually* thread information
entail :: Dict Ord1 f -> Dict Eq1 f
entail Dict = Dict
The selling pitch of QuantifiedConstraints, that we could get this for free.
Above Ord (Fix) example however makes me suspicious. Let's try:
eqQList :: Dict (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) []
eqQList = undefined
But it doesn't work!
Ord1.hs:53:28: error:
• Expected kind ‘(* -> *) -> Constraint’,
but ‘Eq (f x)’ has kind ‘*’
• In the first argument of ‘Dict’, namely
‘(forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x))’
In the type signature:
eqQList :: Dict (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) []
|
53 | eqQList :: Dict (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) []
|
Ord1.hs:53:36: error:
• Expected a type, but ‘Eq (f x)’ has kind ‘Constraint’
• In the first argument of ‘Dict’, namely
‘(forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x))’
In the type signature:
eqQList :: Dict (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) []
|
53 | eqQList :: Dict (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)) []
| ^^^^^^^^
Then we remember that we have seen that,
we **cannot define** type synonyms for quantified constraints
type Eq1' f = forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)
errors with
Ord1.hs:56:33: error:
• Expected a type, but ‘Eq (f x)’ has kind ‘Constraint’
Luckily GHC-8.10.1 (which is not released at the moment of writing)
will give us ability to say
type Eq1' :: (* -> *) -> Constraint
type Eq1' f = forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x)
This is promising! Let's try to fix eqQList
eqQList2 :: Dict Eq1' []
eqQList2 = undefined
But that doesn't work. Type-aliases have to be fully applied!
How in Haskell we fix issues when type-aliases (of classes) need to be
partially
evaluated? We defined
class ... => Example a b c
instance ... => Example a b c
Third try
eqQList3 :: Dict Eq1'' f
eqQList3 = Dict
The type signature is accepted, but the implementation is not
Ord1.hs:67:12: error:
• Could not deduce (Eq (f x)) arising from a use of ‘Dict’
At this point I'm clueless.
---
Best regards,
Oleg
P.S. If we would like to take QuantifiedConstraints somewhere into use,
then IMO we should start with MonadTrans class. IIRC it's well motivated
in the paper. But UndecidableInstances is very unfortunate.
On 14.3.2020 16.10, chessai . wrote:
> I can second Richard's estimation of QuantifiedConstraints, I have
> used them a lot in my own code since they were in HEAD. I consider it
> a sufficiently stable feature to include in base or any library.
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 4:16 AM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev
> <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 14, 2020, at 4:14 AM, Eric Mertens <emertens at gmail.com
>> <mailto:emertens at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The last thing I'd heard about quantified constraints was that
>> they were buggy and I've been avoiding relying on them. (I should
>> probably review that assumptions at some point.)
>
> Without expressing an opinion about chessai's proposal (which I
> have not really thought about): quantified constraints are in good
> shape and ready for prime time. They have limitations (e.g. you
> can't mention a type family to the right of the =>), but when they
> are valid, they work well. I'll never swear that a feature is
> bug-free, but I think it's reasonable to consider using quantified
> constraints in `base`.
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20200314/89dcc992/attachment.html>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list