Difference between revisions of "Class system extension proposal"
m (corrected paraphrase of link to extensible superclasses wiki page) 
(Added another possible implication of superclass overriding proposal) 

Line 63:  Line 63:  
===Implications=== 
===Implications=== 

−  +  One implication of this proposal would be that the resolution of an overloaded method would depend on the instances in scope in the module where the method is called. Therefore overloading would need to be resolved before modules are conceptually merged together (especially important when considering whole program optimization), and in particular overloading of the body of an inlined function would need to be resolved using the module where the function was defined not the module where it is inlined. 

+  
+  Another implication is that the current class system where each level in the hierarchy is independent from other levels (via separate instance declarations), solves the problem of "multiple inheritance": given <code>(Functor m, Applicative m, Monad m)</code> the compiler can find the definition for <code>fmap</code> just by looking at the instance for <code>Functor m</code> alone, whereas with the proposal the compiler would have to consider all the predicates in the context to determine the source of each overloaded function. This may or may not be a problem. 

==Explicit import/export of instances== 
==Explicit import/export of instances== 
Revision as of 17:11, 3 February 2007
Contents
Allowing superclass methods to be overridden in derived classes
Motivation
The current class system in Haskell is based on the idea that you can often provide default implementations for class methods at the same time as defining the class, by using other methods of the class or its ancestors. However consider the following hierarchy, adapted from Functor hierarchy proposal and The Other Prelude:
class Functor m where
fmap :: (a > b) > m a > m b
class Functor m => Applicative m where
return :: a > m a
apply :: m (a > b) > m a > m b
(>>) :: m a > m b > m b
ma >> mb = (fmap (const id) ma) `apply` mb
class Applicative m => Monad m where
(>>=) :: m a > (a > m b) > m b
For all concrete instances of Monad
we can define fmap
, apply
, and (>>)
in terms of return
and (>>=)
as follows:
fmap f ma = ma >>= (\a > return (f a))
apply mf ma = mf >>= \f > ma >>= \a > return (f a)
ma >> mb = ma >>= \_ > mb
In other words, we'd like to be able to write:
class Applicative m => Monad m where
(>>=) :: m a > (a > m b) > m b
fmap f ma = ma >>= (\a > return (f a))
apply mf ma = mf >>= \f > ma >>= \a > return (f a)
ma >> mb = ma >>= \_ > mb
and be able to define new instances of Monad
just by supplying definitions for return
and (>>=)
by writing:
instance Monad T where
ma >>= a_mb = ...  some definition
return a = ...  some definition
However in Haskell at present we can't do this, because we are only allowed to provide default implementations for a class method in the class where the method is introduced (ie the class containing the method signature) and similarly we are only allowed to provide an implementation for a method in an instance for the class itself, not a derived class. Therefore with the above hierarchy, we would have to manually define instances of Functor
and Applicative
whenever we define an instance of Monad
.
It is worth pointing out several reasons why we desire to be able to just define new Monad
instances whithout having to explicitly define instances for Functor
and Applicative
:
 The idea of making
Monad
a subclass ofApplicative
was only discovered after many people had already usedMonad
in their programs. Therefore many existing programs already contain instance declarations forMonad
as outlined above, so we would prefer not to have to change them just because the hierarchy has been refined to add extra functionality these existing programs don't use. This also applies to other hierachies in wide use at the moment, where changes have been proposed eg theNum
hierarchy.  The implementation of
(>>)
in terms of(>>=)
forMonad
is much simpler than the default implementation provided byApplicative
.  The example shows that sometimes the default implementation of a method depends on which subclass we are using, and so acts as a counterexample to the current assumption that default implementations can be provided in the class where the method is introduced.
Concrete proposal
 Class and instance declarations would allow method implementations to be given for any methods in the class or any ancestor class.
 Whenever an instance declaration is visible there would always be a full set of instance declarations for all ancestor classes, by supplementing the set of explicitly given instance declarations that are visible in a module by automatically generated implicit instance declarations.
 The most specific method implementation would always be chosen (ie prefer an explicit instance method over a class method and prefer a subclass method to a superclass method)
 Modules would only export explicit instance declarations
Clarifications
 Separate compilation is still possible because all that's happening in the proposal is that the set of explicit instance declarations in scope in the module would be supplemented by a set of compilergenerated implicit instance declarations which are only visible in the module being compiled.
Implications
One implication of this proposal would be that the resolution of an overloaded method would depend on the instances in scope in the module where the method is called. Therefore overloading would need to be resolved before modules are conceptually merged together (especially important when considering whole program optimization), and in particular overloading of the body of an inlined function would need to be resolved using the module where the function was defined not the module where it is inlined.
Another implication is that the current class system where each level in the hierarchy is independent from other levels (via separate instance declarations), solves the problem of "multiple inheritance": given (Functor m, Applicative m, Monad m)
the compiler can find the definition for fmap
just by looking at the instance for Functor m
alone, whereas with the proposal the compiler would have to consider all the predicates in the context to determine the source of each overloaded function. This may or may not be a problem.
Explicit import/export of instances
This is needed so that large programs can be built without fear of colliding instance declarations between different packages. A possible syntax could be:
module M
 exported instances
( instance Monad T
, instance Functor (F a) hiding (Functor (F Int), Functor (F Char))
, F(..)
) where
import Foo (instance Monad a hiding Monad Maybe)
data T a
data F a b
where the context is elided because this isn't used in instance selection (at the moment). The import directive tells the compiler to use all Monad
instances exported by Foo
except for the Monad Maybe
instance (it doesn't matter whether or not Foo
actually does export a Monad Maybe
instance  all that matters here is that we don't want it if there is one).
Typeclass synonyms
This is needed for the same reason that we need type synonyms: to make complex types managable.
See http://repetae.net/john/recent/out/classalias.html.
Extensible superclasses
This increases modularity by allowing us to add a new superclass to a class without modifying the class itself, just as at present we can always add new subclasses.
See http://taichi.ddns.comp.nus.edu.sg/taichiwiki/GPHomePage for a motivating example.
More details can be found in the paper Modular Generic Programming with Extensible Superclasses, available in ps format from http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sulzmann or in pdf from http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/meng.wang/ (click on home page link then publications link).