Here's a simple test for object orientation (for some reasonable definition):
- Define a type A such that for any type B you can define
up :: B -> A down :: A -> Maybe B
- such that
down . up = Just
You can do this quite easily in Java or C++, mutatis mutandis. You can't do this in Haskell (or O'Haskell either).
You can do a weaker form of this with Haskell's Dynamic, where you only have to deal with Bs that are instances of Typeable. But even with that, note that Dynamic/Typeable/TypeRep are a bit messy, with instances for Typeable defined for a wide range of known types.
An alternative approach would be to identify your B within A not per-B but per-(up,down). This would allow for instance separate (up,down) for the same B such that
down1 . up2 = Nothing down2 . up1 = Nothing
Of course this can be done with Dynamic too, by defining dummy types. But it's ugly.
Extensible datatypes allow a type to be defined as "open", which can later be extended by disjoint union. Here's the Löh-Hinze syntax that achieves the above OO test:
module P where -- define open datatype open data A :: * module Q where import P -- add constructor to A MkB :: B -> A up = MkB down (MkB b) = Just b down _ = Nothing
It's possible to define Dynamic using extensible datatypes. Here's a naive attempt:
open Dynamic :: * class Typeable' a where toDyn :: a -> Dynamic fromDynamic :: Dynamic -> Maybe a -- for each type... MkBool :: Bool -> Dynamic instance Typeable' Bool where toDyn = MkBool fromDynamic (MkBool b) = Just b fromDynamic _ = Nothing
This attempt however doesn't allow easy creation of Typeable1, Typeable2 etc. A better way is to use type-constructor parameters:
open data Dynamic0 :: (* -> *) -> * open data Dynamic1 :: ((* -> *) -> *) -> * type Dynamic = Dynamic0 Identity data Type a = MkType type TypeRep = Dynamic0 Type class Typeable0 a where toDyn0 :: f a -> Dynamic0 f fromDynamic0 :: Dynamic0 f -> Maybe (f a) class Typeable1 p where toDyn1 :: g p -> Dynamic1 g fromDynamic1 :: Dynamic1 g -> Maybe (g p) data Compose p q a = MkCompose (p (q a)) data Compose1 d0 f p = MkCompose1 (d0 (Compose f p)) MkDynamic1 :: (Dynamic1 (Compose1 Dynamic0 f)) -> Dynamic0 f unDynamic1 :: Dynamic0 f -> Maybe (Dynamic1 (Compose1 Dynamic0 f)) unDynamic1 (MkDynamic1 xx) = Just xx unDynamic1 _ = Nothing instance (Typeable1 p,Typeable0 a) => Typeable0 (p a) -- toDyn0 :: f (p a) -> Dynamic0 f toDyn0 = MkDynamic1 . toDyn1 . MkCompose1 . toDyn0 . MkCompose -- fromDynamic0 :: Dynamic0 f -> Maybe (f (p a)) fromDynamic0 dyn = do dcdf <- unDynamic1 dyn (MkCompose1 dcfp) <- fromDynamic1 dcdf (MkCompose fpa) <- fromDynamic0 dcfp return fpa -- for each type MkInt :: (f Int) -> Dynamic0 f instance Typeable0 Int where toDyn0 = MkInt fromDynamic0 (MkInt fi) = Just fi fromDynamic0 _ = Nothing MkMaybe :: (g Maybe) -> Dynamic1 g instance Typeable1 Maybe where toDyn1 = MkMaybe fromDynamic1 (MkMaybe gm) = Just gm fromDynamic1 _ = Nothing
I submit that this is "hairy" rather than "ugly", but I suspect the Type-Constructors Of Unusual Kind (TCOUKs) get even hairier for Typeable2, Typeable3 etc...
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
- Andres Löh and Ralf Hinze. Open Data Types and Open Functions