Difference between revisions of "Type signatures as good style"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Answer: link to type signature)
m (Reverted edits by Tomjaguarpaw (talk) to last revision by Lemming)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 15:18, 6 February 2021

Question

Since Haskell type checkers can automatically derive types of expressions why shall I put explicit type signatures in my programs?

Answer

Using explicit type signatures is good style and GHC with option -Wall warns about missing signatures. Signatures are a good documentation and not all Haskell program readers have a type inference algorithm built-in. There are also some cases where the infered signature is too general for your purposes. E.g. the infered (most general) type for asTypeOf is a -> b -> a, but the purpose of asTypeOf is to unify the types of both operands. The more special signature a -> a -> a is what you want and it cannot be infered automatically. Another example:

emptyString :: ShowS
emptyString = id

Where ShowS is String -> String rather than a -> a.

Even more, for some type extensions the automatic inference fails, e.g. the higher-order types used by Control.Monad.ST.runST

runST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a

cannot be inferred in general, because the problem is undecidable. In GHC, they are enabled with the language pragma RankNTypes.

How to add a bunch of signatures?

Ok, this convinced me. How can I add all the signatures I did not write so far?

You can start GHCi or Hugs and use the :browse Modulename directive. This will list all type signatures including the infered ones.