<title>Class declarations</title>
<para>
-This section documents GHC's implementation of multi-parameter type
-classes. There's lots of background in the paper <ulink
+This section, and the next one, documents GHC's type-class extensions.
+There's lots of background in the paper <ulink
url="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Papers/type-class-design-space" >Type
classes: exploring the design space</ulink > (Simon Peyton Jones, Mark
Jones, Erik Meijer).
</para>
<para>
-There are the following constraints on class declarations:
-<orderedlist>
-<listitem>
+All the extensions are enabled by the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> flag.
+</para>
+<sect3>
+<title>Multi-parameter type classes</title>
<para>
- <emphasis>Multi-parameter type classes are permitted</emphasis>. For example:
+Multi-parameter type classes are permitted. For example:
<programlisting>
...etc.
</programlisting>
-
-
</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
-
-<para>
- <emphasis>The class hierarchy must be acyclic</emphasis>. However, the definition
-of "acyclic" involves only the superclass relationships. For example,
-this is OK:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class C a where {
- op :: D b => a -> b -> b
- }
-
- class C a => D a where { ... }
-</programlisting>
-
-
-Here, <literal>C</literal> is a superclass of <literal>D</literal>, but it's OK for a
-class operation <literal>op</literal> of <literal>C</literal> to mention <literal>D</literal>. (It
-would not be OK for <literal>D</literal> to be a superclass of <literal>C</literal>.)
+</sect3>
-</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
+<sect3>
+<title>The superclasses of a class declaration</title>
<para>
- <emphasis>There are no restrictions on the context in a class declaration
+There are no restrictions on the context in a class declaration
(which introduces superclasses), except that the class hierarchy must
-be acyclic</emphasis>. So these class declarations are OK:
+be acyclic. So these class declarations are OK:
<programlisting>
</para>
-</listitem>
-
-<listitem>
-
<para>
- <emphasis>All of the class type variables must be reachable (in the sense
-mentioned in <xref linkend="type-restrictions"/>)
-from the free variables of each method type
-</emphasis>. For example:
+As in Haskell 98, The class hierarchy must be acyclic. However, the definition
+of "acyclic" involves only the superclass relationships. For example,
+this is OK:
<programlisting>
- class Coll s a where
- empty :: s
- insert :: s -> a -> s
-</programlisting>
-
-
-is not OK, because the type of <literal>empty</literal> doesn't mention
-<literal>a</literal>. This rule is a consequence of Rule 1(a), above, for
-types, and has the same motivation.
-
-Sometimes, offending class declarations exhibit misunderstandings. For
-example, <literal>Coll</literal> might be rewritten
-
+ class C a where {
+ op :: D b => a -> b -> b
+ }
-<programlisting>
- class Coll s a where
- empty :: s a
- insert :: s a -> a -> s a
+ class C a => D a where { ... }
</programlisting>
-which makes the connection between the type of a collection of
-<literal>a</literal>'s (namely <literal>(s a)</literal>) and the element type <literal>a</literal>.
-Occasionally this really doesn't work, in which case you can split the
-class like this:
-
-
-<programlisting>
- class CollE s where
- empty :: s
-
- class CollE s => Coll s a where
- insert :: s -> a -> s
-</programlisting>
+Here, <literal>C</literal> is a superclass of <literal>D</literal>, but it's OK for a
+class operation <literal>op</literal> of <literal>C</literal> to mention <literal>D</literal>. (It
+would not be OK for <literal>D</literal> to be a superclass of <literal>C</literal>.)
+</para>
+</sect3>
-</para>
-</listitem>
-</orderedlist>
-</para>
<sect3 id="class-method-types">
<title>Class method types</title>
+
<para>
Haskell 98 prohibits class method types to mention constraints on the
class type variable, thus:
The type of <literal>elem</literal> is illegal in Haskell 98, because it
contains the constraint <literal>Eq a</literal>, constrains only the
class type variable (in this case <literal>a</literal>).
+GHC lifts this restriction.
</para>
-<para>
-With the <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> GHC lifts this restriction.
-</para>
+
</sect3>
-</sect2>
-<sect2 id="type-restrictions">
-<title>Type signatures</title>
+<sect3 id="functional-dependencies">
+<title>Functional dependencies
+</title>
-<sect3><title>The context of a type signature</title>
+<para> Functional dependencies are implemented as described by Mark Jones
+in “<ulink url="http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mpj/pubs/fundeps.html">Type Classes with Functional Dependencies</ulink>”, Mark P. Jones,
+In Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Programming,
+ESOP 2000, Berlin, Germany, March 2000, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1782,
+.
+</para>
<para>
-Unlike Haskell 98, constraints in types do <emphasis>not</emphasis> have to be of
-the form <emphasis>(class type-variable)</emphasis> or
-<emphasis>(class (type-variable type-variable ...))</emphasis>. Thus,
-these type signatures are perfectly OK
+Functional dependencies are introduced by a vertical bar in the syntax of a
+class declaration; e.g.
<programlisting>
- g :: Eq [a] => ...
- g :: Ord (T a ()) => ...
+ class (Monad m) => MonadState s m | m -> s where ...
+
+ class Foo a b c | a b -> c where ...
</programlisting>
+There should be more documentation, but there isn't (yet). Yell if you need it.
</para>
<para>
-GHC imposes the following restrictions on the constraints in a type signature.
-Consider the type:
+In a class declaration, all of the class type variables must be reachable (in the sense
+mentioned in <xref linkend="type-restrictions"/>)
+from the free variables of each method type.
+For example:
<programlisting>
- forall tv1..tvn (c1, ...,cn) => type
+ class Coll s a where
+ empty :: s
+ insert :: s -> a -> s
</programlisting>
-(Here, we write the "foralls" explicitly, although the Haskell source
-language omits them; in Haskell 98, all the free type variables of an
-explicit source-language type signature are universally quantified,
-except for the class type variables in a class declaration. However,
-in GHC, you can give the foralls if you want. See <xref linkend="universal-quantification"/>).
-</para>
-
-<para>
-
-<orderedlist>
-<listitem>
-
-<para>
- <emphasis>Each universally quantified type variable
-<literal>tvi</literal> must be reachable from <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
-
-A type variable <literal>a</literal> is "reachable" if it it appears
-in the same constraint as either a type variable free in in
-<literal>type</literal>, or another reachable type variable.
-A value with a type that does not obey
-this reachability restriction cannot be used without introducing
-ambiguity; that is why the type is rejected.
-Here, for example, is an illegal type:
-
-
+is not OK, because the type of <literal>empty</literal> doesn't mention
+<literal>a</literal>. Functional dependencies can make the type variable
+reachable:
<programlisting>
- forall a. Eq a => Int
+ class Coll s a | s -> a where
+ empty :: s
+ insert :: s -> a -> s
</programlisting>
+Alternatively <literal>Coll</literal> might be rewritten
-When a value with this type was used, the constraint <literal>Eq tv</literal>
-would be introduced where <literal>tv</literal> is a fresh type variable, and
-(in the dictionary-translation implementation) the value would be
-applied to a dictionary for <literal>Eq tv</literal>. The difficulty is that we
-can never know which instance of <literal>Eq</literal> to use because we never
-get any more information about <literal>tv</literal>.
-</para>
-<para>
-Note
-that the reachability condition is weaker than saying that <literal>a</literal> is
-functionally dependent on a type variable free in
-<literal>type</literal> (see <xref
-linkend="functional-dependencies"/>). The reason for this is there
-might be a "hidden" dependency, in a superclass perhaps. So
-"reachable" is a conservative approximation to "functionally dependent".
-For example, consider:
<programlisting>
- class C a b | a -> b where ...
- class C a b => D a b where ...
- f :: forall a b. D a b => a -> a
+ class Coll s a where
+ empty :: s a
+ insert :: s a -> a -> s a
</programlisting>
-This is fine, because in fact <literal>a</literal> does functionally determine <literal>b</literal>
-but that is not immediately apparent from <literal>f</literal>'s type.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
-<para>
- <emphasis>Every constraint <literal>ci</literal> must mention at least one of the
-universally quantified type variables <literal>tvi</literal></emphasis>.
-For example, this type is OK because <literal>C a b</literal> mentions the
-universally quantified type variable <literal>b</literal>:
+which makes the connection between the type of a collection of
+<literal>a</literal>'s (namely <literal>(s a)</literal>) and the element type <literal>a</literal>.
+Occasionally this really doesn't work, in which case you can split the
+class like this:
<programlisting>
- forall a. C a b => burble
-</programlisting>
-
+ class CollE s where
+ empty :: s
-The next type is illegal because the constraint <literal>Eq b</literal> does not
-mention <literal>a</literal>:
+ class CollE s => Coll s a where
+ insert :: s -> a -> s
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+</sect3>
-<programlisting>
- forall a. Eq b => burble
-</programlisting>
-The reason for this restriction is milder than the other one. The
-excluded types are never useful or necessary (because the offending
-context doesn't need to be witnessed at this point; it can be floated
-out). Furthermore, floating them out increases sharing. Lastly,
-excluding them is a conservative choice; it leaves a patch of
-territory free in case we need it later.
-</para>
-</listitem>
+</sect2>
-</orderedlist>
+<sect2 id="instance-decls">
+<title>Instance declarations</title>
-</para>
-</sect3>
+<sect3 id="instance-heads">
+<title>Instance heads</title>
-<sect3 id="hoist">
-<title>For-all hoisting</title>
<para>
-It is often convenient to use generalised type synonyms (see <xref linkend="type-synonyms"/>) at the right hand
-end of an arrow, thus:
-<programlisting>
- type Discard a = forall b. a -> b -> a
-
- g :: Int -> Discard Int
- g x y z = x+y
-</programlisting>
-Simply expanding the type synonym would give
-<programlisting>
- g :: Int -> (forall b. Int -> b -> Int)
-</programlisting>
-but GHC "hoists" the <literal>forall</literal> to give the isomorphic type
-<programlisting>
- g :: forall b. Int -> Int -> b -> Int
-</programlisting>
-In general, the rule is this: <emphasis>to determine the type specified by any explicit
-user-written type (e.g. in a type signature), GHC expands type synonyms and then repeatedly
-performs the transformation:</emphasis>
-<programlisting>
- <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
-==>
- forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
-</programlisting>
-(In fact, GHC tries to retain as much synonym information as possible for use in
-error messages, but that is a usability issue.) This rule applies, of course, whether
-or not the <literal>forall</literal> comes from a synonym. For example, here is another
-valid way to write <literal>g</literal>'s type signature:
-<programlisting>
- g :: Int -> Int -> forall b. b -> Int
-</programlisting>
+The <emphasis>head</emphasis> of an instance declaration is the part to the
+right of the "<literal>=></literal>". In Haskell 98 the head of an instance
+declaration
+must be of the form <literal>C (T a1 ... an)</literal>, where
+<literal>C</literal> is the class, <literal>T</literal> is a type constructor,
+and the <literal>a1 ... an</literal> are distinct type variables.
</para>
<para>
-When doing this hoisting operation, GHC eliminates duplicate constraints. For
-example:
-<programlisting>
- type Foo a = (?x::Int) => Bool -> a
- g :: Foo (Foo Int)
-</programlisting>
-means
+The <option>-fglasgow-exts</option> flag lifts this restriction and allows the
+instance head to be of form <literal>C t1 ... tn</literal> where <literal>t1
+... tn</literal> are arbitrary types (provided, of course, everything is
+well-kinded). In particular, types <literal>ti</literal> can be type variables
+or structured types, and can contain repeated occurrences of a single type
+variable.
+Examples:
<programlisting>
- g :: (?x::Int) => Bool -> Bool -> Int
+ instance Eq (T a a) where ...
+ -- Repeated type variable
+
+ instance Eq (S [a]) where ...
+ -- Structured type
+
+ instance C Int [a] where ...
+ -- Multiple parameters
</programlisting>
</para>
</sect3>
-
-</sect2>
-
-<sect2 id="instance-decls">
-<title>Instance declarations</title>
-
<sect3 id="instance-overlap">
<title>Overlapping instances</title>
<para>
<programlisting>
instance F a where ...
</programlisting>
-Note that instance heads <emphasis>may</emphasis> contain repeated type variables.
+Note that instance heads may contain repeated type variables (<xref linkend="instance-heads"/>).
For example, this is OK:
<programlisting>
instance Stateful (ST s) (MutVar s) where ...
</sect2>
+<sect2 id="type-restrictions">
+<title>Type signatures</title>
+
+<sect3><title>The context of a type signature</title>
+<para>
+Unlike Haskell 98, constraints in types do <emphasis>not</emphasis> have to be of
+the form <emphasis>(class type-variable)</emphasis> or
+<emphasis>(class (type-variable type-variable ...))</emphasis>. Thus,
+these type signatures are perfectly OK
+<programlisting>
+ g :: Eq [a] => ...
+ g :: Ord (T a ()) => ...
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+GHC imposes the following restrictions on the constraints in a type signature.
+Consider the type:
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall tv1..tvn (c1, ...,cn) => type
+</programlisting>
+
+(Here, we write the "foralls" explicitly, although the Haskell source
+language omits them; in Haskell 98, all the free type variables of an
+explicit source-language type signature are universally quantified,
+except for the class type variables in a class declaration. However,
+in GHC, you can give the foralls if you want. See <xref linkend="universal-quantification"/>).
+</para>
+
+<para>
+
+<orderedlist>
+<listitem>
+
+<para>
+ <emphasis>Each universally quantified type variable
+<literal>tvi</literal> must be reachable from <literal>type</literal></emphasis>.
+
+A type variable <literal>a</literal> is "reachable" if it it appears
+in the same constraint as either a type variable free in in
+<literal>type</literal>, or another reachable type variable.
+A value with a type that does not obey
+this reachability restriction cannot be used without introducing
+ambiguity; that is why the type is rejected.
+Here, for example, is an illegal type:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall a. Eq a => Int
+</programlisting>
+
+
+When a value with this type was used, the constraint <literal>Eq tv</literal>
+would be introduced where <literal>tv</literal> is a fresh type variable, and
+(in the dictionary-translation implementation) the value would be
+applied to a dictionary for <literal>Eq tv</literal>. The difficulty is that we
+can never know which instance of <literal>Eq</literal> to use because we never
+get any more information about <literal>tv</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+Note
+that the reachability condition is weaker than saying that <literal>a</literal> is
+functionally dependent on a type variable free in
+<literal>type</literal> (see <xref
+linkend="functional-dependencies"/>). The reason for this is there
+might be a "hidden" dependency, in a superclass perhaps. So
+"reachable" is a conservative approximation to "functionally dependent".
+For example, consider:
+<programlisting>
+ class C a b | a -> b where ...
+ class C a b => D a b where ...
+ f :: forall a b. D a b => a -> a
+</programlisting>
+This is fine, because in fact <literal>a</literal> does functionally determine <literal>b</literal>
+but that is not immediately apparent from <literal>f</literal>'s type.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+
+<para>
+ <emphasis>Every constraint <literal>ci</literal> must mention at least one of the
+universally quantified type variables <literal>tvi</literal></emphasis>.
+
+For example, this type is OK because <literal>C a b</literal> mentions the
+universally quantified type variable <literal>b</literal>:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall a. C a b => burble
+</programlisting>
+
+
+The next type is illegal because the constraint <literal>Eq b</literal> does not
+mention <literal>a</literal>:
+
+
+<programlisting>
+ forall a. Eq b => burble
+</programlisting>
+
+
+The reason for this restriction is milder than the other one. The
+excluded types are never useful or necessary (because the offending
+context doesn't need to be witnessed at this point; it can be floated
+out). Furthermore, floating them out increases sharing. Lastly,
+excluding them is a conservative choice; it leaves a patch of
+territory free in case we need it later.
+
+</para>
+</listitem>
+
+</orderedlist>
+
+</para>
+</sect3>
+
+<sect3 id="hoist">
+<title>For-all hoisting</title>
+<para>
+It is often convenient to use generalised type synonyms (see <xref linkend="type-synonyms"/>) at the right hand
+end of an arrow, thus:
+<programlisting>
+ type Discard a = forall b. a -> b -> a
+
+ g :: Int -> Discard Int
+ g x y z = x+y
+</programlisting>
+Simply expanding the type synonym would give
+<programlisting>
+ g :: Int -> (forall b. Int -> b -> Int)
+</programlisting>
+but GHC "hoists" the <literal>forall</literal> to give the isomorphic type
+<programlisting>
+ g :: forall b. Int -> Int -> b -> Int
+</programlisting>
+In general, the rule is this: <emphasis>to determine the type specified by any explicit
+user-written type (e.g. in a type signature), GHC expands type synonyms and then repeatedly
+performs the transformation:</emphasis>
+<programlisting>
+ <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
+==>
+ forall a1..an. <emphasis>context2</emphasis> => <emphasis>type1</emphasis> -> <emphasis>type2</emphasis>
+</programlisting>
+(In fact, GHC tries to retain as much synonym information as possible for use in
+error messages, but that is a usability issue.) This rule applies, of course, whether
+or not the <literal>forall</literal> comes from a synonym. For example, here is another
+valid way to write <literal>g</literal>'s type signature:
+<programlisting>
+ g :: Int -> Int -> forall b. b -> Int
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+<para>
+When doing this hoisting operation, GHC eliminates duplicate constraints. For
+example:
+<programlisting>
+ type Foo a = (?x::Int) => Bool -> a
+ g :: Foo (Foo Int)
+</programlisting>
+means
+<programlisting>
+ g :: (?x::Int) => Bool -> Bool -> Int
+</programlisting>
+</para>
+</sect3>
+
+
+</sect2>
+
<sect2 id="implicit-parameters">
<title>Implicit parameters</title>
</sect2>
-<sect2 id="functional-dependencies">
-<title>Functional dependencies
-</title>
-
-<para> Functional dependencies are implemented as described by Mark Jones
-in “<ulink url="http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mpj/pubs/fundeps.html">Type Classes with Functional Dependencies</ulink>”, Mark P. Jones,
-In Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Programming,
-ESOP 2000, Berlin, Germany, March 2000, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1782,
-.
-</para>
-<para>
-Functional dependencies are introduced by a vertical bar in the syntax of a
-class declaration; e.g.
-<programlisting>
- class (Monad m) => MonadState s m | m -> s where ...
-
- class Foo a b c | a b -> c where ...
-</programlisting>
-There should be more documentation, but there isn't (yet). Yell if you need it.
-</para>
-</sect2>
-
-
-
<sect2 id="sec-kinding">
<title>Explicitly-kinded quantification</title>
projects / ghc-hetmet.git / commitdiff