Search Results

Search found 18 results on 1 pages for 'typeclass'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Why isn't there a typeclass for functions?

  - by Steve314

  I already tried this on Reddit, but there's no sign of a response - maybe it's the wrong place, maybe I'm too impatient. Anyway... In a learning problem I've been messing around with, I realised I needed a typeclass for functions with operations for applying, composing etc. Reasons... It can be convenient to treat a representation of a function as if it were the function itself, so that applying the function implicitly uses an interpreter, and composing functions derives a new description. Once you have a typeclass for functions, you can have derived typeclasses for special kinds of functions - in my case, I want invertible functions. For example, functions that apply integer offsets could be represented by an ADT containing an integer. Applying those functions just means adding the integer. Composition is implemented by adding the wrapped integers. The inverse function has the integer negated. The identity function wraps zero. The constant function cannot be provided because there's no suitable representation for it. Of course it doesn't need to spell things as if it the values were genuine Haskell functions, but once I had the idea, I thought a library like that must already exist and maybe even using the standard spellings. But I can't find such a typeclass in the Haskell library. I found the Data.Function module, but there's no typeclass - just some common functions that are also available from the Prelude. So - why isn't there a typeclass for functions? Is it "just because there isn't" or "because it's not so useful as you think"? Or maybe there's a fundamental problem with the idea? The biggest possible problem I've thought of so far is that function application on actual functions would probably have to be special-cased by the compiler to avoid a looping problem - in order to apply this function I need to apply the function application function, and to do that I need to call the function application function, and to do that...

  Read the article

• Haskell typeclass

  - by Geoff

  I have a Haskell typeclass question. I can't munge the syntax to get this (seemingly reasonable) program to compile under GHC. import Control.Concurrent.MVar blah1 :: [a] -> IO ([a]) blah1 = return blah2 :: [a] -> IO (MVar [a]) blah2 = newMVar class Blah b where blah :: [a] -> IO (b a) instance Blah [] where blah = blah1 -- BOOM instance Blah (MVar []) where blah = blah2 main :: IO () main = do putStrLn "Ok" I get the following error message, which kind of makes sense, but I don't know how to fix it: `[]' is not applied to enough type arguments Expected kind `*', but `[]' has kind `* -> *' In the type `MVar []' In the instance declaration for `Blah (MVar [])'

  Read the article

• Adding class constraints to typeclass instance

  - by BleuM937

  I'm trying to implement the Cantor Pairing Function, as an instance of a generic Pair typeclass, as so: module Pair (Pair, CantorPair) where -- Pair interface class Pair p where pi :: a -> a -> p a k :: p a -> a l :: p a -> a -- Wrapper for typing newtype CantorPair a = P { unP :: a } -- Assume two functions with signatures: cantorPair :: Integral a => a -> a -> CantorPair a cantorUnpair :: Integral a => CantorPair a -> (a, a) -- I need to somehow add an Integral a constraint to this instance, -- but I can't work out how to do it. instance Pair CantorPair where pi = cantorPair k = fst . cantorUnpair l = snd . cantorUnpair How can I add the appropriate Integral constraint to the instance? I have a vague feeling I might need to modify the Pair interface itself, but not sure how to go about this.

  Read the article

• Typeclass instances for unnamed types in Scala

  - by ncreep

  How would one encode the following constraint in Scala (pseudocode)? def foo(x: T forSome { type T has a Numeric[T] instance in scope }) = { val n= implicitly[...] // obtain the Numeric instance for x n.negate(x) // and use it with x } In words: I need a type class instance for my input argument, but I don't care about the argument's type, I just need to obtain the instance and use it on my argument. It doesn't have to be an existential type, but I need to avoid type parameters in the def's signature. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Demangling typeclass functions in GHC profiler output

  - by Paul Kuliniewicz

  When profiling a Haskell program written in GHC, the names of typeclass functions are mangled in the .prof file to distinguish one instance's implementations of them from another. How can I demangle these names to find out which type's instance it is? For example, suppose I have the following program, where types Fast and Slow both implement Show: import Data.List (foldl') sum' = foldl' (+) 0 data Fast = Fast instance Show Fast where show _ = show $ sum' [1 .. 10] data Slow = Slow instance Show Slow where show _ = show $ sum' [1 .. 100000000] main = putStrLn (show Fast ++ show Slow) I compile with -prof -auto-all -caf-all and run with +RTS -p. In the .prof file that gets generated, I see that the top cost centers are: COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc show_an9 Main 71.0 83.3 sum' Main 29.0 16.7 And in the tree, I likewise see (omitting irrelevant lines): individual inherited COST CENTRE MODULE no. entries %time %alloc %time %alloc main Main 232 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 show_an9 Main 235 1 71.0 83.3 100.0 100.0 sum' Main 236 0 29.0 16.7 29.0 16.7 show_anx Main 233 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 How do I figure out that show_an9 is Slow's implementation of show and not Fast's?

  Read the article

• Haskell data serialization of some data implementing a common type class

  - by Evan

  Let's start with the following data A = A String deriving Show data B = B String deriving Show class X a where spooge :: a -> Q [ Some implementations of X for A and B ] Now let's say we have custom implementations of show and read, named show' and read' respectively which utilize Show as a serialization mechanism. I want show' and read' to have types show' :: X a => a -> String read' :: X a => String -> a So I can do things like f :: String -> [Q] f d = map (\x -> spooge $ read' x) d Where data could have been [show' (A "foo"), show' (B "bar")] In summary, I wanna serialize stuff of various types which share a common typeclass so I can call their separate implementations on the deserialized stuff automatically. Now, I realize you could write some template haskell which would generate a wrapper type, like data XWrap = AWrap A | BWrap B deriving (Show) and serialize the wrapped type which would guarantee that the type info would be stored with it, and that we'd be able to get ourselves back at least an XWrap... but is there a better way using haskell ninja-ery? EDIT Okay I need to be more application specific. This is an API. Users will define their As, and Bs and fs as they see fit. I don't ever want them hacking through the rest of the code updating their XWraps, or switches or anything. The most i'm willing to compromise is one list somewhere of all the A, B, etc. in some format. Why? Here's the application. A is "Download a file from an FTP server." B is "convert from flac to mp3". A contains username, password, port, etc. information. B contains file path information. A and B are Xs, and Xs shall be called "Tickets." Q is IO (). Spooge is runTicket. I want to read the tickets off into their relevant data types and then write generic code that will runTicket on the stuff read' from the stuff on disk. At some point I have to jam type information into the serialized data.

  Read the article

• Instantiate type variable in Haskell

  - by danportin

  EDIT: Solved. I was unware that enabling a language extension in the source file did not enable the language extension in GHCi. The solution was to :set FlexibleContexts in GHCi. I recently discovered that type declarations in classes and instances in Haskell are Horn clauses. So I encoded the arithmetic operations from The Art of Prolog, Chapter 3, into Haskell. For instance: fac(0,s(0)). fac(s(N),F) :- fac(N,X), mult(s(N),X,F). class Fac x y | x -> y instance Fac Z (S Z) instance (Fac n x, Mult (S n) x f) => Fac (S n) f pow(s(X),0,0) :- nat(X). pow(0,s(X),s(0)) :- nat(X). pow(s(N),X,Y) :- pow(N,X,Z), mult(Z,X,Y). class Pow x y z | x y -> z instance (N n) => Pow (S n) Z Z instance (N n) => Pow Z (S n) (S Z) instance (Pow n x z, Mult z x y) => Pow (S n) x y In Prolog, values are insantiated for (logic) variable in a proof. However, I don't understand how to instantiate type variables in Haskell. That is, I don't understand what the Haskell equivalent of a Prolog query ?-f(X1,X2,...,Xn) is. I assume that :t undefined :: (f x1 x2 ... xn) => xi would cause Haskell to instantiate xi, but this gives a Non type-variable argument in the constraint error, even with FlexibleContexts enabled.

  Read the article

• "Ambigous type variable" error when defining custom "read" function

  - by Tener

  While trying to compile the following code, which is enhanced version of read build on readMay from Safe package. readI :: (Typeable a, Read a) => String -> a readI str = case readMay str of Just x -> x Nothing -> error ("Prelude.read failed, expected type: " ++ (show (typeOf > (undefined :: a))) ++ "String was: " ++ str) I get an error from GHC: WavefrontSimple.hs:54:81: Ambiguous type variable `a' in the constraint: `Typeable a' arising from a use of `typeOf' at src/WavefrontSimple.hs:54:81-103 Probable fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)` I don't understand why. What should be fixed to get what I meant? EDIT: Ok, so the solution to use ScopedTypeVariables and forall a in type signature works. But why the following produces very similar error to the one above? The compiler should infer the right type since there is asTypeOf :: a -> a -> a used. readI :: (Typeable a, Read a) => String -> a readI str = let xx = undefined in case readMay str of Just x -> x `asTypeOf` xx Nothing -> error ("Prelude.read failed, expected type: " ++ (show (typeOf xx)) ++ "String was: " ++ str)

  Read the article

• Inherit from Type class of .Net

  - by Miguel Angelo

  Is there any point at all on inheriting from Type class in .Net? i.e. What could be the meaning of doing so? I am asking this because of this text in MSDN documentation: Notes to Inheritors When you inherit from Type, you must override the following members... list of members. MSDN doc for Type: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.type.aspx ok, that is actually saying that anyone can inherit from Type... but they dont say why would you ever want to do that. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How can I make a Maybe-Transformer MaybeT into an instance of MonadWriter?

  - by martingw

  I am trying to build a MaybeT-Transformer Monad, based on the example in the Real World Haskell, Chapter Monad Transformers: data MaybeT m a = MaybeT { runMT :: m (Maybe a) } instance (Monad m) => Monad (MaybeT m) where m >>= f = MaybeT $ do a <- runMT m case a of Just x -> runMT (f x) Nothing -> return Nothing return a = MaybeT $ return (Just a) instance MonadTrans MaybeT where lift m = MaybeT $ do a <- m return (Just a) This works fine, but now I want to make MaybeT an instance of MonadWriter: instance (MonadWriter w m) => MonadWriter w (MaybeT m) where tell = lift . tell listen m = MaybeT $ do unwrapped <- listen (runMT m) return (Just unwrapped) The tell is ok, but I can't get the listen function right. The best I could come up with after 1 1/2 days of constructor origami is the one you see above: unwrapped is supposed to be a tuple of (Maybe a, w), and that I want to wrap up in a Maybe-Type and put the whole thing in an empty MonadWriter. But the compiler complains with: Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: a = Maybe a When generalising the type(s) for `listen' In the instance declaration for `MonadWriter w (MaybeT m)' What am I missing?

  Read the article

• Appropriate uses of Monad `fail` vs. MonadPlus `mzero`

  - by jberryman

  This is a question that has come up several times for me in the design code, especially libraries. There seems to be some interest in it so I thought it might make a good community wiki. The fail method in Monad is considered by some to be a wart; a somewhat arbitrary addition to the class that does not come from the original category theory. But of course in the current state of things, many Monad types have logical and useful fail instances. The MonadPlus class is a sub-class of Monad that provides an mzero method which logically encapsulates the idea of failure in a monad. So a library designer who wants to write some monadic code that does some sort of failure handling can choose to make his code use the fail method in Monad or restrict his code to the MonadPlus class, just so that he can feel good about using mzero, even though he doesn't care about the monoidal combining mplus operation at all. Some discussions on this subject are in this wiki page about proposals to reform the MonadPlus class. So I guess I have one specific question: What monad instances, if any, have a natural fail method, but cannot be instances of MonadPlus because they have no logical implementation for mplus? But I'm mostly interested in a discussion about this subject. Thanks! EDIT: One final thought occured to me. I recently learned (even though it's right there in the docs for fail) that monadic "do" notation is desugared in such a way that pattern match failures, as in (x:xs) <- return [] call the monad's fail. It seems like the language designers must have been strongly influenced by the prospect of some automatic failure handling built in to haskell's syntax in their inclusion of fail in Monad.

  Read the article

• Haskell's TypeClasses and Go's Interfaces

  - by Jeremy Jose

  What are the similarities and the differences between Haskell's TypeClasses and Go's Interfaces? What are the relative merits / demerits of the two approaches?

  Read the article

• Haskell: Defaulting constraints to type

  - by yairchu

  Consider this example: applyKTimes :: Integral i => i -> (a -> a) -> a -> a applyKTimes 0 _ x = x applyKTimes k f x = applyKTimes (k-1) f (f x) applyThrice :: (a -> a) -> a -> a applyThrice = applyKTimes 3 The 3 in applyThrice is defaulted by GHC to an Integer as shown when compiling with -Wall: Warning: Defaulting the following constraint(s) to type 'Integer' 'Integral t' arising from a use of 'applyKTimes' So I guess that Integer is the default Integral a => a. Is there a way to define "default types" for other constraints too? Is using default types bad practice? (it does complain when using -Wall..)

  Read the article

• What's the "|" for in a Haskell class definition?

  - by martingw

  I can't figure out what the "| m - w"-part means in a class definition like this: class (Monoid w, Monad m) = MonadWriter w m | m - w What additional information does this add to the class definition?

  Read the article

• Linking/Combining Type Classes in Haskell

  - by thegravian

  Say I have two type classes defined as follows that are identical in function but different in names: class Monad m where (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b return :: a -> m a class PhantomMonad p where pbind :: p a -> (a -> p b) -> p b preturn :: a -> p b Is there a way to tie these two classes together so something that is an instance of PhantomMonad will automatically be an instance of Monad, or will instances for each class have to be explicitly written? Any insight would be most appreciated, thanks!

  Read the article

• functional dependencies vs type families

  - by mhwombat

  I'm developing a framework for running experiments with artificial life, and I'm trying to use type families instead of functional dependencies. Type families seems to be the preferred approach among Haskellers, but I've run into a situation where functional dependencies seem like a better fit. Am I missing a trick? Here's the design using type families. (This code compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u where type MyAgent u :: * withAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } defaultWithAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () defaultWithAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus default implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- .. and they'll also need to make SimpleUniverse an instance of Universe -- for their agent type. -- instance Universe SimpleUniverse where type MyAgent SimpleUniverse = Bug withAgent = defaultWithAgent -- boilerplate -- plus similar boilerplate for other functions Is there a way to avoid forcing my users to write those last two lines of boilerplate? Compare with the version using fundeps, below, which seems to make things simpler for my users. (The use of UndecideableInstances may be a red flag.) (This code also compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u a => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u a | u -> a where withAgent :: Agent a => (a -> StateT u IO a) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } instance Universe SimpleUniverse a where withAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- And now my users only have to write stuff like... -- u :: SimpleUniverse u = SimpleUniverse "mydir"

  Read the article

• Haskell: Problems with overloading: Interpreter can´t tell which + to use

  - by Ben

  Hi, I want to make functions Double - Double an instance of the Num typeclass. I want to define the sum of two functions as sum of their images. So I wrote instance Num Function where f + g = (\ x - (f x) + (g x)) Here the compiler complains he can´t tell whether I´m using Prelude.+ or Module.+ in the lambda expression. So I imported Prelude qualified as P and wrote instance Num Function where f + g = (\ x - (f x) P.+ (g x)) This compiles just fine, but when I try to add two functions in GHCi the interpreter complains again he can´t tell whether I´m using Prelude.+ or Module.+. Is there any way I can solve this problem?

  Read the article

• Haskell: how to get through 'no instance for' ?

  - by artemave

  I am learning Haskell. I am on the 8th chapter of this book. The main thing I've learned so far is that Haskell is very unfriendly to me and it bites my ass where possible. Moreover... Heck! Enough mourning, to business. Here is the code: module GlobRegex ( globToRegex, matchesGlob ) where import Text.Regex.Posix import Text.Regex.Posix.String import Text.Regex.Base.RegexLike data CaseOpt = Case | NoCase deriving (Eq) matchesGlob :: String -> String -> CaseOpt -> Bool matchesGlob name pat caseopt = match regex name where regex = case caseopt of NoCase -> makeRegexOpts (defaultCompOpt + compIgnoreCase) defaultExecOpt (globToRegex pat) Case -> makeRegex (globToRegex pat) globToRegex :: String -> String ... And here is how it fails to compile: Prelude Text.Regex.Posix Text.Regex.Base.RegexLike> :load globtoregex\GlobRegex. hs [1 of 1] Compiling GlobRegex ( globtoregex\GlobRegex.hs, interpreted ) globtoregex\GlobRegex.hs:14:31: No instance for (RegexLike regex [Char]) arising from a use of `match' at globtoregex\GlobRegex.hs:14:31-46 Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (RegexLike regex [Char]) In the expression: match regex name In the definition of `matchesGlob': matchesGlob name pat caseopt = match regex name where regex = case caseopt of { NoCase -> makeRegexOpts (defaultCompOpt + compIgnoreCase) defaultExecOpt (globToRegex pat) Case -> makeRegex (globToRegex pat) } globtoregex\GlobRegex.hs:17:23: No instance for (RegexMaker regex CompOption execOpt String) arising from a use of `makeRegex' at globtoregex\GlobRegex.hs:17:23-49 Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (RegexMaker regex CompOption execOpt String) In the expression: makeRegex (globToRegex pat) In a case alternative: Case -> makeRegex (globToRegex pat) In the expression: case caseopt of { NoCase -> makeRegexOpts (defaultCompOpt + compIgnoreCase) defaultExecOpt (globToRegex p at) Case -> makeRegex (globToRegex pat) } Failed, modules loaded: none. To my best understanding, Text.Regex.Posix.String provides instances for RegexLike Regex String and RegexMaker Regex CompOption ExecOption String, so it should work. On the other hand, I can see that regex in the error message is type variable, not a concrete type, so, perhaps not... Anyway, this is where I am stuck. May be there is a common pattern for resolving no instance for type of problems? Or, in Haskell terms, instance of SmartGuess typeclass for no instance for?

  Read the article

1