hkd-pattern-type-level-ski

The HKD pattern and type-level SKI

Let’s start with a nice warm bowl of language soup.

{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-} {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-} {-# LANGUAGE PolyKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-} {-# LANGUAGE TypeInType #-} {-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-} import Control.Monad.Trans.Writer import Control.Monad.Trans.Reader import Data.Functor.Identity

The world before HKD

Suppose we want to parametrise a type on some type constructor. A prototypical exaple might be

newtype Foo f = Foo ( Maybe (f Int )) (f))

We can be parametric and fill in Foo with all sorts of goodies. For example, we can use different sorts of monads,

e1 :: Foo ( Writer String ) = Foo $ Just $ do e1 "Hello " tell "World!" tell return 2 e2 :: Foo IO = Foo $ Just $ do e2 putStrLn "Type an Int" readLn

We can do pairs (albeit through a newtype),

data Pair a = Pair a a a a e3 :: Foo Pair = Foo ( Just ( Pair 1 2 )) e3))

If we want to make make a Reader Int String using Foo ’s Int as the first parameter we have to do more newtype wrapping,

newtype ReversedReader a r = ReversedReader ( Reader r a) a rr a) e4 :: Foo ( ReversedReader String ) = Foo $ Just $ ReversedReader $ do e4 i <- ask ask return ( show i) i)

And if we want to store functions like a -> f Int we have to come up with yet another wrapper,

newtype ApplicativeAction a f b = ApplicativeAction (a -> f b) a f b(af b) e5 :: Applicative f => Foo ( ApplicativeAction a f) a f) -> a -> f ( Foo Identity ) f ( Foo Nothing ) _ = pure ( Foo Nothing ) e5 () _ Foo ( Just ( ApplicativeAction f))) a = e5 (f))) a fmap ( Foo . Just . Identity ) (f a) ) (f a)

HKD to the rescue

This as all getting tedious so HKD comes to the rescue. Instead of parametrising on a type constructor we parametrise on some opaque symbol (a defunctionalised version of the type constructor, if you will). Sandy Maguire described how this works in his article HKD: Less Terrible than You Might Expect. Foo becomes

type family F f b f b data Foo' f = Foo' ( Maybe ( F f Int )) ))

Then we no longer need a newtype for pairs,

data P type instance F P a = (a, a) (a, a) e3' :: Foo' P = Foo' ( Just ( 1 , 2 )) e3'))

Or for reversed Reader s,

data RR a type instance F ( RR a) r = Reader r a a) rr a e4' :: Foo' ( RR String ) = Foo' $ Just $ do e4' i <- ask ask return ( show i) i)

Or for Applicative actions,

data AA a f a f data Iden type instance F ( AA a f) b = a -> f b a f) bf b type instance F Iden b = b e5' :: Applicative f => Foo' ( AA a f) -> a -> f ( Foo' Iden ) a f)f ( Foo' Nothing ) _ = pure ( Foo' Nothing ) e5' () _ Foo' ( Just f)) a = fmap ( Foo' . Just ) (f a) e5' (f)) a) (f a)

Twiddling our thumbs

That’s all well and good but it’s still frustrating to have to define a new symbol and instance each time we want Foo to hold a different type. What we want to do is to capture the parameter to f (in Foo ’s case, Int ) and construct some expression with it. Type families and the defunctionalised symbols provide that facility but in a clumsy and non-compositional way. We want a uniform and compositional way of writing type-level functions, a sort of type-level lambda calculus, if you will.

Muse on that for a few moments while I fiddle around with a typed version of the SKI combinators.

data Arr a b where a b S :: Arr a (b -> r) a (br) -> Arr a b a b -> Arr a r a r K :: a -> Arr b a b a I :: Arr a a a a

Arr a (b -> r) -> Arr a b -> Arr a r has the pattern ... (b -> r) -> ... b -> ... r and so it looks a bit like an Applicative . Let me implement that.

instance Applicative ( Arr k1) where k1) pure = K ( <*> ) = S instance Functor ( Arr k1) where k1) fmap f = ( <*> ) ( pure f) ) (f)

I’m going to implement the SKI calculus rules in function called A .

A :: Arr a b -> a -> b a b A I a = a A ( K k) _ = k k) _ A ( S f x) a = ( A f a) ( A x a) f x) af a) (x a)

Hmm, that doesn’t compile because A is uppercase. I guess I could make it lowercase but the uppercase version is all cool and pointy. Maybe I’ll make it a type function instead. Haskell’s hot dependent type technology can lift A to the type level almost automatically. Luckily I included TypeInType in the language soup we had for starters.

type family A ( a :: Arr k1 k2) ( b :: k1) :: k2 k1 k2) (k1)k2 type instance A I a = a type instance A ( K k) _ = k k) _ type instance A ( S f x) a = ( A f a) ( A x a) f x) af a) (x a)

Neat. But I’ve lost my cool Applicative instance because it doesn’t exist at the type level. Never mind, let’s bring it back and add a type-level id and <| for luck.

type ( <*> ) = S type Pure = K type ( <$> ) f = ( <*> ) ( Pure f) ) f) (f) type Id = I type ( <| ) f x = A f x ) f xf x

Abstraction at the type level

Anyway, where was I? Back to the problem at hand. How can we get a uniform and compositional way of writing type-level functions, like a type-level lambda calculus? Oh, hang on a minute! SKI calculus is equivalent to lambda calculus, and I just implemented it at the type level by accident.

Right, let’s make type constructor Foo again, this time parametrised on something of kind Arr * * .

data Foo'' f = Foo'' ( Maybe (f <| Int )) (f))

How do we rewrite our types using type-level SKI? The transformation of lambda terms into SKI terms can be somewhat messy. The examples we’ll consider here will be just within the realm of the readable, but I wouldn’t want to inflict upon you terms any more complicated than these. Basically, we’ve got an applicative interface. To introduce something that doesn’t depend on your type parameter use Pure – i.e. K – to introduce your parameter itself use Id – i.e. I – and to apply one term to another use <*> – i.e. S .

For example, \a -> (a, a) at the value level is (,) <$> id <*> id , and at the type level it’s (,) <$> Id <*> Id .

e3'' :: Foo'' ((,) <$> Id <*> Id ) ((,) = Foo'' ( Just ( 1 , 2 )) e3''))

Let’s try another example. \r -> Reader r String is Reader <$> Id <*> Pure String . Oops! Reader is defined as

type Reader r = ReaderT r Identity

so we can’t use it without at least one argument. Never fear, type-level SKI is here! We can just use \r -> ReaderT r Identity String which becomes ReaderT <$> Id <*> Pure Identity <*> Pure String .

e4'' :: Foo'' ( ReaderT <$> Id <*> Pure Identity <*> Pure String ) = Foo'' $ Just $ do e4'' i <- ask ask return ( show i) i)

If we want to do \b -> a -> f b then we need (->) a <$> (f <$> Id) .

e5'' :: Applicative f => Foo'' (( -> ) a <$> (f <$> Id )) (() a(f)) -> a -> f ( Foo'' Id ) f ( Foo'' Nothing ) _ = pure ( Foo'' Nothing ) e5'' () _ Foo'' ( Just f)) a = fmap ( Foo'' . Just ) (f a) e5'' (f)) a) (f a)

Conclusion and discussion

We can define a single type family whose index is some combination of a collection of compositional symbols called the SKI combinators. Using those we can build up a type-level expression equivalent to any lambda term. We can even use an applicative interface to do this!

What’s the downside? Well, you saw those terms, right? They’re verging on unreadable. Also, inferrence is terrible (but no worse than with defunctionalised symbols). Some languages (for example Scala, I believe) have native type-level lambda abstractions. We don’t have them in Haskell. Given the result of this investigation I assume that’s purely because the inference is bad (see also Lennart’s speculation on the matter).

We could have defined SKI at the type level directly. This would give us composable data types as well as new type-level symbols to map on. I’m not sure that there would be a lot of point though. It might be worth exploring further.

data S f g x = S ((f x) (g x)) f g x((f x) (g x)) data K x y = K x x y data I x = I x

Richard Eisenberg seems to have been touching on the same sort of thing in his post Defunctionalization for the win. There is distinction between the work presented here and his and I haven’t yet been able to understand whether they are the same in spirit.

Have you seen type-level SKI or type-level applicatives used like this before? Contact me.