# GHC/Type system

### From HaskellWiki

(→Type signatures and ambiguity) |
(→Type signatures and ambiguity) |
||

Line 17: | Line 17: | ||

f x = konst (foo x) | f x = konst (foo x) | ||

</haskell> | </haskell> | ||

− | If you | + | If you compile this code, you'll get this error: |

<pre> | <pre> | ||

Foo1.hs:12:13: | Foo1.hs:12:13: | ||

Line 27: | Line 27: | ||

In the definition of `f': f x = konst (foo x) | In the definition of `f': f x = konst (foo x) | ||

</pre> | </pre> | ||

− | What's going on? Without the type signature, GHC picks | + | What's going on? GHC knows, from the type signature that <tt>x::a</tt>. Then applying <tt>foo</tt> means GHC must pick a return type for <tt>foo</tt>, say <tt>b1</tt>, and generates the type constraint <tt>(C a b1)</tt>. The function <tt>konst</tt> just discards its argument, ''so nothing further is known abouut <tt>b1</tt>''. |

+ | |||

+ | Now GHC finished typechecking the right hand side of <tt>f</tt>, so next it checks that the constraints ''needed'' in the RHS, namely <tt>(C a b1)</tt>, can be satisfied from the constraints ''provided'' by the type signature, namely <tt>(C a b)</tt>. Alas there is nothing to tell GHC that <tt>b</tt> and <tt>b1</tt> should be identified together; hence the complaint. (Probably you meant to put a functional dependency in the class declaration, thus | ||

+ | <haskell> | ||

+ | class C a b | a->b where ... | ||

+ | </haskell> | ||

+ | but you didn't.) | ||

+ | |||

+ | The surprise is that if you comment out the type signature for <tt>f</tt>, the module will load fine into GHCi! Furthermore <tt>:t</tt> will report a type for <tt>f</tt> that is exactly the same as the type signature that was rejected! | ||

+ | |||

+ | Here's what's happening. Without the type signature, GHC picks an arbitrary type for <tt>x</tt>, say <tt>x::a</tt>. Then applying <tt>foo</tt> means GHC must pick a return type for <tt>foo</tt>, say <tt>b</tt>, and generates the type constraint <tt>(C a b)</tt>. The function <tt>konst</tt> just discards its argument, so nothing further is known abouut <tt>b</tt>. Finally, GHC gathers up all the constraints arising from the right hand side, namely <tt>(C a b)</tt>, and puts them into the inferred type of <tt>f</tt>. So GHC ends up saying that <hask>f :: (C a b) => a -> Bool</hask>. | ||

This is probably a very stupid type. Suppose you called <tt>f</tt> thus: <tt>(f 'a')</tt>. Then you'd get a constraint <tt>(C Char b)</tt> where nothing is known about <tt>b</tt>. That would be OK if there was an instance like: | This is probably a very stupid type. Suppose you called <tt>f</tt> thus: <tt>(f 'a')</tt>. Then you'd get a constraint <tt>(C Char b)</tt> where nothing is known about <tt>b</tt>. That would be OK if there was an instance like: | ||

Line 33: | Line 43: | ||

instance C Char b where ... | instance C Char b where ... | ||

</haskell> | </haskell> | ||

+ | But in the more likely situation where you had instances that constrain both type parameters, you'd be in trouble: | ||

+ | <haskell> | ||

+ | instance C Char Bool where ... | ||

+ | </haskell> | ||

+ | Now the call gives a <tt>(C Char b)</tt> constraint, with absolutely no way to fix <tt>b</tt> to be <tt>Bool</tt>, or indeed anything else. We're back to very much the same situation as before; it's just that the error is deferred until we call <tt>f</tt>, rather than when we define it. | ||

+ | |||

+ | This behaviour isn't ideal. It really only arises in programs that are ambiguous anyway (that is, they could never really work), but it is undoubtedly confusing. But I don't know how to improve it. Yet, anyway. | ||

== Overlapping instances == | == Overlapping instances == |

## Revision as of 16:43, 20 February 2007

Type system extensions in GHC

GHC comes with a rather large collection of type-system extensions (beyond Haskell 98). They are all documented in the user manual, but this page is a place to record observations, notes, and suggestions on them.

## Contents |

## 1 Type signatures and ambiguity

It's quite common for people to write a function definition without a type signature, load it into GHCi, use `:t` to see what type it has, and then cut-and-paste that type into the source code as a type signature. Usually this works fine, but alas not always. Perhaps this is a deficiency in GHC, but here's one way it can happen:

class C a b where foo :: a -> b konst :: a -> Bool konst x = True f :: (C a b) => a -> Bool f x = konst (foo x)

If you compile this code, you'll get this error:

Foo1.hs:12:13: Could not deduce (C a b1) from the context (C a b) arising from use of `foo' at Foo1.hs:12:13-17 Possible fix: add (C a b1) to the type signature(s) for `f' In the first argument of `konst', namely `(foo x)' In the expression: konst (foo x) In the definition of `f': f x = konst (foo x)

What's going on? GHC knows, from the type signature that `x::a`. Then applying `foo` means GHC must pick a return type for `foo`, say `b1`, and generates the type constraint `(C a b1)`. The function `konst` just discards its argument, *so nothing further is known abouut b1*.

Now GHC finished typechecking the right hand side of `f`, so next it checks that the constraints *needed* in the RHS, namely `(C a b1)`, can be satisfied from the constraints *provided* by the type signature, namely `(C a b)`. Alas there is nothing to tell GHC that `b` and `b1` should be identified together; hence the complaint. (Probably you meant to put a functional dependency in the class declaration, thus

class C a b | a->b where ...

but you didn't.)

The surprise is that if you comment out the type signature for `f`, the module will load fine into GHCi! Furthermore `:t` will report a type for `f` that is exactly the same as the type signature that was rejected!

`x`, say

`x::a`. Then applying

`foo`means GHC must pick a return type for

`foo`, say

`b`, and generates the type constraint

`(C a b)`. The function

`konst`just discards its argument, so nothing further is known abouut

`b`. Finally, GHC gathers up all the constraints arising from the right hand side, namely

`(C a b)`, and puts them into the inferred type of

`f`. So GHC ends up saying that

This is probably a very stupid type. Suppose you called `f` thus: `(f 'a')`. Then you'd get a constraint `(C Char b)` where nothing is known about `b`. That would be OK if there was an instance like:

instance C Char b where ...

But in the more likely situation where you had instances that constrain both type parameters, you'd be in trouble:

instance C Char Bool where ...

Now the call gives a `(C Char b)` constraint, with absolutely no way to fix `b` to be `Bool`, or indeed anything else. We're back to very much the same situation as before; it's just that the error is deferred until we call `f`, rather than when we define it.

This behaviour isn't ideal. It really only arises in programs that are ambiguous anyway (that is, they could never really work), but it is undoubtedly confusing. But I don't know how to improve it. Yet, anyway.

## 2 Overlapping instances

Here an interesting message about the interaction of existential types and overlapping instances.

## 3 Indexed data types and indexed newtypes

Indexed data types (including associated data types) are a very recent addition to GHC's type system extensions that is not yet included in the user manual. To use the extension, you need to obtain a version of GHC from its source repository.

## 4 Stand-alone deriving clauses

Bjorn Bringert has recently implemented "stand-alone deriving" declarations.