The approach here, and my original implementation are both lifted almost entirely from Luka Horvat’s plugin for simple-effects . All praise should be directed to him.

Last time we chatted about using a GHC plugin to run custom Core-to-Core transformations on the programs that GHC is compiling. Doing so allows us to add custom optimization passes, and even other, more exotic things like rewriting lambda expression as categorical operations.

Today I want to talk about another sort of GHC plugin: type-checker plugins! TC plugins let you hook into GHC’s constraint machinery and help it solve domain-specific problems that it wouldn’t be able to otherwise. One of the more interesting examples of a TC plugin is nomeata’s ghc-justdoit — which will automatically generate a value of the correct type, essentially letting you leave implementations as “exercises for the compiler.”

Polysemy uses a TC plugin in order to improve type-inference. The result is that it can provide type-inference that is as good as mtl ’s, without succumbing to the pitfalls that accompany mtl ’s approach.

The Problem

Consider the following program:

foo :: MonadState Int m => m () m () = modify ( + 1 ) foomodify (

Such a thing compiles and runs no problem. There are no surprises here for any Haskell programmers who have ever run into mtl . But the reason it works is actually quite subtle. If we look at the type of modify we see:

modify :: MonadState s m => (s -> s) -> m () s m(ss)m ()

which suggests that the s -> s function we pass to it should determine the s parameter. But our function (+ 1) has type Num a => a -> a , therefore the type of modify (+1) should be this:

+ 1 ) :: ( MonadState s m, Num s) => m () modify (s m,s)m ()

So the question is, why the heck is GHC willing to use a MonadState Int m constraint to solve the wanted (MonadState s m, Num s) constraint arising from a use of modify (+1) ? The problem feels analogous to this one, which doesn’t work:

bar :: Show Bool => a -> String = show b -- doesn't work bar b

Just because we have a Show Bool constraint in scope doesn’t mean that a is a Bool ! So how come we’re allowed to use our MonadState Int m constraint, to solve a (MonadState s m, Num s) ? Completely analogously, we don’t know that s is an Int !

The solution to this puzzler is in the definition of MondState :

class Monad m => MonadState s ( m :: * -> * ) | m -> s where s (

Notice this | m -> s bit, which is known as a functional dependency or a fundep for short. The fundep says “if you know m , you also know s ,” or equivalently, “ s is completely determined by m .” And so, when typechecking foo , GHC is asked to solve both MonadState Int m and (Num s, MonadState s m) . But since there can only be a single instance of MonadState for m, this means that MonadState Int m and MonadState s m must be the same. Therefore s ~ Int .

This is an elegant solution, but it comes at a cost — namely that we’re only allowed to use a single MonadState at a time! If you’re a longtime Haskell programmer, this probably doesn’t feel like a limitation to you; just stick all the pieces of state you want into a single type, and then use some classy fields to access them, right? Matt Parsons has a blog post on the pain points, and some bandages, for doing this with typed errors. At the end of the day, the real problem is that we’re only allowed a single MonadError constraint.

Polysemy “fixes the glitch” by just not using fundeps. This means you’re completely free to use as many state, error, and whatever effects you want all at the same time. The downside? Type-inference sucks again. Indeed, the equivalent program to foo in polysemy doesn’t compile by default:

foo' :: Member ( State Int ) r => Sem r () ) rr () = modify ( + 1 ) foo'modify (

• Ambiguous use of effect 'State' Possible fix: add (Member (State s0) r) to the context of the type signature If you already have the constraint you want, instead add a type application to specify 's0' directly, or activate polysemy-plugin which can usually infer the type correctly. • In the expression: modify (+ 1) In an equation for ‘foo'’: foo' = modify (+ 1)

This situation blows chunks. It’s obvious what this program should do, so let’s just fix it.

The Solution

Let’s forget about the compiler for a second and ask ourselves how the Human Brain Typechecker(TM) would type-check this problem. Given the program:

foo' :: Member ( State Int ) r => Sem r () ) rr () = modify ( + 1 ) foo'modify (

A human would look at the modify here, and probably run an algorithm similar to this:

Okay, what State is modify running over here?

is running over here? Well, it’s some sort of Num .

. Oh, look, there’s a Member (State Int) r constraint in scope.

constraint in scope. That thing wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t necessary.

I guess modify is running over State Int .

Pretty great algorithm! Instead, here’s what GHC does:

Okay, what State is modify running over here?

is running over here? Well, it’s some sort of Num .

. But that thing is polymorphic.

Guess I’ll emit a (Num n, Member (State n) r) constraint.

constraint. Why did the stupid human put an unnecessary Member (State Int) r constraint here?

constraint here? What an idiot!

And then worse, it won’t compile because the generated n type is now ambiguous and not mentioned anywhere in the type signature!

Instead, let’s use a TC plugin to make GHC reason more like a human when it comes to Member constraints. In particular, we’re going to mock the fundep lookup algorithm:

Whenever GHC is trying to solve a Member (effect a) r constraint

constraint And there is exactly one constraint in scope of the form Member (effect b) r

Then emit a a ~ b constraint, allowing GHC to use the given Member (effect b) r constraint to solve the wanted Member (effect a) r

TC Plugins

At its heart, a TC plugin is a value of type TcPlugin , a record of three methods:

data TcPlugin = forall s . TcPlugin { tcPluginInit :: TcPluginM s , tcPluginSolve :: s -> [ Ct ] -> [ Ct ] -> [ Ct ] -> TcPluginM TcPluginResult , tcPluginStop :: s -> TcPluginM () () }

The tcPluginInit field can be used to allocate a piece of state that is passed to the other two records, and tcPluginStop finalizes that state. Most plugins I’ve seen use the s parameter to lookup the GHC representation of classes that they want to help solve. However, the most interesting bit is the tcPluginSolve function.

tcPluginSolve takes three lists of Ct s, which are different varieties of constraints relevant to the problem.

The first list is the given constraints — the ones a user has explicitly written out in a type signature. The second list is the derived constraints — things GHC has inferred from context. The third list is the wanted constraints — the ones that GHC can’t solve on its own.

From these three lists, we are expected to provide a TcPluginResult , which for our purposes is a pair of new Ct s we’d like GHC to solve; and a list of the Ct s we solved, along with the corresponding dictionaries. Returning two empty lists here signals to GHC “I can’t do any more work!”

So let’s get to work. The first thing we need to do is get our hands on the Member class we want to solve. In polysemy , Member is actually just a type synonym for a few other typeclasses; so the real typeclass we’d like to solve for is called Find .

As a brief aside on the Find class, its definition is this:

class Find ( r :: [k]) ( t :: k) where [k]) (k)

and it means “lookup the index of t inside r ”. In Polysemy, r is usually left polymorphic, for the same reasons that we leave the m polymorphic in MonadState s m .

Anyway, we want to find the Find class. We can do this by writing a function for our tcPluginInit function:

findFindClass :: TcPlugin Class = do findFindClass <- lookupModule mdlookupModule "Polysemy.Internal.Union" ) (mkModuleName "polysemy" ) (fsLit <- lookupName md $ mkTcOcc "Find" find_tclookupName mdmkTcOcc tcLookupClass find_tc

We first lookup the defining module, here Polysemy.Internal.Union in package polysemy . We then lookup the Find name in that module, and then lookup the class with that name. By setting findFindClass as our tcPluginInit , our tcPluginSolve function will receive the Find class as a parameter.

Before diving into tcPluginSolve , we’re going to need some helper functions.

allFindCts :: Class -> [ Ct ] -> [( CtLoc , ( Type , Type , Type ))] [(, ())] = do allFindCts cls cts <- cts ctcts CDictCan { cc_tyargs = [ _, r, eff ] } <- pure ct { cc_tyargs[ _, r, eff ] }ct $ cls == cc_class cd guardclscc_class cd let eff_name = getEffName eff eff_namegetEffName eff pure (ctLoc ct, (eff_name, eff, r)) (ctLoc ct, (eff_name, eff, r)) getEffName :: Type -> Type = fst $ splitAppTys t getEffName tsplitAppTys t

The allFindCts function searches through the Ct s for Find constraints, and unpacks the pieces we’re going to need. We first pattern match on whether the Ct is a CDictCan , which corresponds to everyday typeclass-y constraints. We ensure it has exactly three type args ( Find takes a kind, and then the two parameters we care about), and ensure that this class is the cls we’re looking for.

We return four things for each matching Ct :

We need to keep track of its CtLoc — corresponding to where the constraint came from. This is necessary to keep around so GHC can give good error messages if things go wrong. The effect “name”. This is just the head of the effect, in our ongoing example, it’s State . The actual effect we’re looking for. This corresponds to the t parameter in a Find constraint. In the ongoing example, State s . The effect stack we’re searching in ( r in the Find constraint).

So remember, our idea is “see if there is exactly one matching given Find constraint for any wanted Find constraint — and if so, unify the two.”

findMatchingEffect :: ( Type , Type , Type ) -> [( Type , Type , Type )] [()] -> Maybe Type = findMatchingEffect (eff_name, _, r) ts $ do singleListToJust <- ts (eff_name', eff', r')ts $ eqType eff_name eff_name' guardeqType eff_name eff_name' $ eqType r r' guardeqType r r' pure eff eff singleListToJust :: [a] -> Maybe a [a] = Just a singleListToJust [a] = Nothing singleListToJust _

findMatchingEffect takes the output of allFindCts for a single wanted constraint, and all of the given constraints, and sees if there’s a single match between the two. If so, it returns the matching effect.

We need one last helper before we’re ready to put everything together. We wanted to be able to generate new wanted constraints of the form a ~ b . Emitting such a thing as a new wanted constraint will cause GHC to unify a and b ; which is exactly what we’d like in order to convince it to use one given constraint in place of another.

mkWanted :: CtLoc -> Type -> Type -> TcPluginM ( Maybe Ct ) = do mkWanted loc eff eff' if eqType (getEffName eff) (getEffName eff') eqType (getEffName eff) (getEffName eff') then do <- unsafeTcPluginTcM (ev, _)unsafeTcPluginTcM . runTcSDeriveds runTcSDeriveds $ newWantedEq loc Nominal eff eff' newWantedEq loceff eff' pure . Just $ CNonCanonical ev ev else pure Nothing

What’s going on here? Well we check if the two effects we want to unify have the same effect name. Then if so, we use the wanted’s CtLoc to generate a new, derived wanted constraint of the form eff ~ eff' . In essence, we’re promising the compiler that it can solve the wanted if it can solve eff ~ eff' .

And finally we’re ready to roll.

solveFundep :: Class -> [ Ct ] -> [ Ct ] -> [ Ct ] -> TcPluginM TcPluginResult = do solveFundep find_cls giv _ want let wanted_effs = allFindCts find_cls want wanted_effsallFindCts find_cls want = fmap snd $ allFindCts find_cls giv given_effsallFindCts find_cls giv <- forM wanted_effs $ \(loc, e @ (_, eff, r)) -> eqsforM wanted_effs\(loc, e(_, eff, r)) case findMatchingEffect e given_effs of findMatchingEffect e given_effs Just eff' -> mkWanted loc eff eff' eff'mkWanted loc eff eff' Nothing -> do case splitAppTys r of splitAppTys r -> mkWanted loc eff eff' (_, [_, eff', _])mkWanted loc eff eff' _ -> pure Nothing pure . TcPluginOk [] $ catMaybes eqs []catMaybes eqs

We get all of the Find constraints in the givens and the wanteds. Then, for each wanted, we see if there is a singularly matching given, and if so, generate a wanted constraint unifying the two.

However, if we don’t find a singularly matching effect, we’re not necessarily in hot water. We attempt to decompose r into a type constructor and its arguments. Since r has kind [k] , there are three possibilities here:

r is a polymorphic type variable, in which case we can do nothing. r is '[] , so we have no effects to possibly unify, and so we can do nothing. r has form e ': es , in which case we attempt to unify e with the wanted.

What’s going on with this? Why is this bit necessary? Well, consider the case where we want to run our effect stack. Let’s say we have this program:

foo' :: Member ( State Int ) r => Sem r () ) rr () = modify ( + 1 ) foo'modify ( main :: IO () () = do main <- runM . runState 5 $ foo' resultrunMrunStatefoo' print result result

The type of runM . runState 5 is Num a => Sem '[State a, Lift IO] x -> IO x . But foo' still wants a State Int constraint, however, main doesn’t have any givens! Instead, the wanted we see is of the form Find '[State a, Lift IO] (State Int) , and so we’re justified in our logic above to unify State Int with the head of the list.

Finally we can bundle everything up:

plugin :: Plugin = defaultPlugin plugindefaultPlugin = const $ Just fundepPlugin { tcPluginfundepPlugin } fundepPlugin :: TcPlugin = TcPlugin fundepPlugin = findFindClass { tcPluginInitfindFindClass = solveFundep , tcPluginSolvesolveFundep = const $ pure () , tcPluginStop() }

and voila, upon loading our module via the -fplugin flag, GHC will automatically start solving Member constraints as though they were fundeps!

This isn’t the whole story; there are still a few kinks in the implementation for when your given is more polymorphic than your wanted (in which case they shouldn’t unify), but this is enough to get a feeling for the idea. As always, the full source code is on Github.

As we’ve seen, TC plugins are extraordinarily powerful for helping GHC solve domain-specific problems, and simultaneously quite easy to write. They’re not often the right solution, but they’re a great thing to keep in your tool belt!