GADTs and fully polymorphic functions

Today I’ve been asked a question about GADTs and the answer turned out to be somewhat tricky, so I decided to clarify it for myself in this post.

“Default values” example

Let’s start with some contrived example and say we want to have default values for certain types. We can use typeclasses for this, but let’s proceed with GADTs:

{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-} module Main where data Type a where TBool :: Type Bool TInt :: Type Int

Here we have a bare representation of certain Haskell types. Now, our function for getting defaults may be written like this:

def :: Type a -> a def t = case t of TBool -> False TInt -> 0

So far, so good. But wait, the patterns TBool and TInt have Type a type, but a parameter is different in each pattern! How can they coexist? And will this work without GADTs?

Polymorphic functions

Let’s try. Assume this, somewhat artificial, code:

f :: [a] -> a f x = case x of [ True ] -> True [ 1 ] -> 1

Here we want to achieve something similar: a polymorphic function which have different a in its clauses. But this clearly won’t work, even if left only with the first clause:

g :: [a] -> a g [ True ] = True

GHC error is the following:

"Couldn't match type `a' with `Bool': `a' is a rigid type variable bound by the type signature for g :: [a] -> a"

So what’s happening here? In the type signature we say g :: [a] -> a which means that we promise that g should return a truly polymorphic value, not a dull Bool , as we do in this case. The same is true about the patterns: we are not allowed to use concrete types in the patterns, since this will break polymorphism and our promise that g should work for the list of any type a .

Even simpler example of the problem would be the following function, which gives a similar typing error:

g :: a g = "aaa"

This fails. One might think - hey, a String may be an a too, why not to cast it automatically, like we do, say, in Java?

Object g () { return "aaa" ; }

The problem with that approach is that in Haskell the caller of the function relies on the fact that it’s polymorphic and decides what a variable actually is. For example, suppose we are using g function in the following code:

h :: Int h = 1 + g

This is a perfectly legal piece of code, since g supposed to be fully polymorphic, thus it might be used as an addend too. But if g would have returned a string “aaa”, this certainly won’t be the case.

On the other hand, in Java, the callee (not the caller) decides which type is actually used for a , and the only thing that caller knows is that certain interface is supported. So the callee may decide that it’s perfectly fine to return a String “aaa”, as soon as it conforms to the Object interface. And the caller might only use Object methods to do something with that String. So, we can’t implement h analog in Java, because Object does not expose any methods for addition.

This leads to further question: are there any reasonable implementations of function with the type signature g :: a ? To be a valid implementation, the returned value has to be of every possible type. There is only one such value: ⊥, so the only possible implementation is:

g :: a g = undefined

Back to GADTs

Ok, now we have seen that such functions won’t compile and understood why, but why it works with GADT?

def :: Type a -> a def TBool = False def TInt = 0

Let’s take a closer look on the first clause:

def TBool = False

The right hand side of the definition is obviously of type Bool , not a . However, if the argument to def is TBool , then the type parameter a must be exactly Bool , this restriction is clearly specified in GADT definition:

-- a is Bool here! TBool :: Type Bool

So the right hand side has type a in this context. Similarly, the RHS of the second definition has type Int , but only in the context when a must be Int . Therefore, everything fits in place and we have a well-typed program.

Moral

This pattern matching with simultaneous type refinement seems to be one of the key features of GADTs. It allows to refine general type variables like a to something more concrete with the help of user-defined type refinement (specified in GADTs definition), which in turn allows writing so much nicer code!

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.