Unifying associated type synonyms with class constraints

问题

I have a nested type that I want to partially specify using associated type synonyms. Below is some extremely reduced code that demonstrates the problem:

{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies,
FlexibleInstances,
FlexibleContexts,
MultiParamTypeClasses #-}

f :: Int -> Int
f x = x+1

data X t i
newtype Z i = Z i deriving (Eq,Show)
newtype Y q = Y (T q)

class Qux m r where
    g :: (T m) -> r

class (Integral (T a)) => Foo a where
    type T a
    -- ... functions

instance (Integral i) => Foo (X (Z i) i) where
    type T (X (Z i) i) = i

instance (Foo q) => Num (Y q) -- where ...

instance (Foo q, Foo (X m' Int)) => Qux (X m' Int) (Y q) where
    g x =  fromIntegral $ f $ x

which (even with UndecidableInstances) leads to the compiler error:

Could not deduce (T (X m' Int) ~ Int)

I know that adding this constraint to the instance of Qux makes the compiler happy. However, I know that in my program (T (X arg1 arg2)) = arg2, so I am trying to figure out how to not have to write this constraint.

My question is: can I make Haskell realize that when I write 'Int' as the second parameter to X, that this is (identically) the same thing as the synonym T (X a' Int)? I realize I'm using "special" knowledge about how my instances will look, but I think there should be a way to convey this to the compiler.

Thanks

回答1:

Since I'm not sure I understand the question yet, I'm going to discuss the code you wrote; perhaps some part of my rambling will either point you in a helpful direction or spark some pointed questions that are possible for me to answer. That is to say: warning! rambling non-answer ahead!

First, let's talk about the Bar class.

-- class (i ~ S b) => Bar b i where
--     type S b
--     ...

Since we know the constraint i ~ S b, we might as well drop the i argument, and I will do so for the rest of the discussion.

class Bar b where type S b
-- or, if the class is empty, just
-- type family S b
-- with no class declaration at all

Here's how the instances for this new class would look:

instance Bar (Z  i) where type S (Z  i) = i
instance Bar (Z' i) where type S (Z' i) = i

If this is meant to be true for any type constructor, you could consider writing this as one instance instead:

-- instance Bar (f i) where type S (f i) = i

Now, let's talk about the Foo class. To change it to match with the above, we would write

class Bar (T a) => Foo a where type T a

You've declared two instances:

-- instance (Bar (Z i) i) => Foo (X (Z i) i) where
--     type T (X (Z i) i) = Z i
--
-- instance (Bar (Z' i) i) => Foo (X' (Z' i) i) where
--     type T (X (Z' i) i) = Z' i

We can strip the second argument to Bar as before, but we can also do another thing: since we know there's a Bar (Z i) instance (we declared it above!), we can take away the instance constraint.

instance Foo (X (Z  i) i) where type T (X (Z  i) i) = Z  i
instance Foo (X (Z' i) i) where type T (X (Z' i) i) = Z' i

Whether you want to keep the i argument to X or not depends on what X is supposed to represent. So far, we haven't changed the semantics of any of the class declarations or data types -- only how they were declared and instanced. Changing X may not have the same property; it's hard to say without seeing the definition of X. With the data declarations and sufficiently many extensions, the above prelude compiles.

Now, your complaints:

• You say that the following doesn't compile:

  class Qux a
  instance Foo (X  a' Int) => Qux (X  a' Int)
  instance Foo (X' a' Int) => Qux (X' a' Int)
  

  But, with UndecidableInstances, that does compile here. And it makes sense for it to need UndecidableInstances: there's nothing to stop somebody from coming along later and declaring an instance like

  instance Qux (X Y Int) => Foo (X Y Int)
  
  Then, checking whether `Qux (X Y Int)` had an instance would require checking whether `Foo (X Y Int)` had an instance and vice versa. Loop.
  

• You say, "It also wants the instance constraint S (T (X a'))) ~ Int, even though I know that in my program, these are always just synonyms.". I don't know what the first "it" is -- I can't reproduce this error -- so I can't answer this very well. Also, as I complained before, this constraint is ill-kinded: X :: (* -> *) -> * -> *, therefore X a' :: * -> *, and T expects an argument of kind *. So I'm going to assume you meant S (T (X a' Int)) ~ Int instead.

  Despite these complaints, we can ask why S (T (X a' Int)) ~ Int is not provable from the assumptions we have so far. So far, we've only declared Foo instances for types that fit the pattern X (Z i) i and X (Z' i) i. So the type function T can only reduce when its argument type fits one of those patterns. The type X a' Int doesn't quite fit either of those patterns. We could cram it into the right pattern: we could try reducing with X (Z Int) Int instead (say). Then we would find that T (X (Z Int) Int) ~ Z Int, and therefore S (T (X (Z Int) Int) ~ S (Z Int) ~ Int.

  This answers how to fix the type-level reduction, but doesn't explain how to fix whatever code is not building. To do that, we'd have to find out why the type checker needs a coercion from S (T (X a' Int)) to Int, and see if we can convince it that a more specific (and satisfiable) coercion like S (T (X (Z Int) Int)) ~ Int, or, with the suggested generalized Bar instance above, S (T (X (f Int) Int)) ~ Int. We certainly can't help you with that without having enough code to reproduce your error.

• You ask, "can I make Haskell realize that when I write 'Int' as the second parameter to X, that this is (identically) the same thing as the synonym S (T (X a' Int))?". I don't understand this question at all. You want to somehow have a provable equality X a Int ~ S (T (X a' Int))? That's the interpretation I get from a literal reading of your question.

  In context, I think you may have wanted to ask whether you can get a provable equality b ~ S (T (X a b)); in that case, the answer is, "Definitely!". We'll abuse the fact we know above that b ~ S (Z b) to reduce this equation to the stronger one Z b ~ T (X a b). Then we can just replace the Foo instances above with one that makes this declaration and nothing more:

  instance Foo (X a b) where T (X a b) = Z b
  

  Alternately, we could postulate the other reasonable equation, T (X a b) ~ a; then, to prove that S (T (X a b)) ~ b we would just need to prove that S a ~ b (by reducing T), so we could write this other alternate Foo instance:

  instance (Bar a, S a ~ b) => Foo (X a b) where T (X a b) = a
  

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11493603/unifying-associated-type-synonyms-with-class-constraints