On 10 Jan 2008, at 6:04 AM, Nicholls, Mark wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: Bulat Ziganshin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 January 2008 13:36
To: Nicholls, Mark
Cc: Luke Palmer; haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] confusion about 'instance'....

Hello Mark,

Thursday, January 10, 2008, 4:25:20 PM, you wrote:

"instance Num a =>> A a"

Mean the same thing as

"instance A (forall a.Num a=>a)"

programmers going from OOP world always forget that classes in Haskell
doesn't the same as classes in C++. *implementation* of this instance
require to pass dictionary of Num class along with type. now imagine
the following code:

My confusion is not between OO classes and Haskell classes, but exactly
are the members of a Haskell type class...I'd naively believed them to
be types (like it says on the packet!)...but now I'm not so sure.

A type class *is* a set of types. But, in Haskell, types like (forall a. Num a => a) aren't quite first-class feeling. A typical example of an expression of this type might be (3 + 5), but if I say

x :: Double
x = 3 + 5

the compiler won't complain.

Furthermore, if the compiler sees

instance A Double where

somewhere in the code, when it sees foo (3 + 5), for some method foo of the class, it may decide to take (3 + 5) :: Double, not (3 + 5) :: forall a. Num a => a. In that case, you'll get the wrong methods called:

class A a where
  foo :: a -> String
instance A Double where
  foo x = "Double"
instance A (forall a. Num a => a) where
  foo x = "number"

If the compiler sees the first instance but not the second, then it will think that foo (3 + 5) = "Double". Adding the second will give foo (3 + 5) = "number". Haskell 98's rules for type classes are chosen so that legal code never changes its meaning when you add an instance (well, this is a bad example --- but the general point is sound). GHC relaxes these rules in quite a few cases, but in this one it's easy enough (in GHC) to get a type isomorphic to forall a. Num a => a that can be an instance of a type class that GHC hasn't bothered relaxing this particular rule. (And paying the subsequent cost in confusion when working code bitrots because somebody added an instance somewhere).

jcc

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to