
Dear All, I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere for reading. I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was very helpful. However, one of the points of discussion left me confused. When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B (e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y) How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true. Any other pointers very welcome. Matt

One useful way to understand this is to note you will see T in type annotations and A, B in your actual code. I.e. T is a type constructor and A, B are data constructors. M. Matt Williams:
Dear All,
I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere for reading.
I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was very helpful.
However, one of the points of discussion left me confused.
When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B
(e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y)
How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true.
Any other pointers very welcome.
Matt
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Matt Williams wrote:
When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B
(e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y)
How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true.
You are correct that A and B are not types in Haskell. The relationship is that there are two different ways to construct a value of type T. Whenever a T is needed, you can use either A or B. That means, on the other hand, that whenever a T is consumed, you have to handle two cases: A and B. These data types are called "algebraic data types," which might help you find more to read about them. The wiki has a page: https://wiki.haskell.org/Algebraic_data_type. Lastly, as a bit of a digression, you could imagine an alternate language in which A and B are subtypes of T, such that constructor A returns a value of type A, and constructor B returns a value of type B. I'm not an expert on the theory behind all of this, but I know that doing type inference would be much harder in such a language. -Karl

T is the type. A and B are the only constructors for values of that type. A
and B are not terms in the type language. T is not a term in the value
language.
It's simpler to consider a type without any fields in the constructor:
data Bool = True | False
True and False are values, Bool is the type. You can't use Bool as a
constructor, and you can't use True or False as a type.
When you add fields it can get a bit more confusing, because the fields of
a constructor are types, so it looks like "ValueConstructor1 FieldType1
FieldType2 | ValueConstructor2 FieldType3"
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
To make it more clear, here the types are annotated with <AngleBrackets>
and the constructors annotated with [SquareBrackets]:
data <PersonOrPlace> = [Person] <String> | [Place] <String>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Matt Williams wrote: Dear All, I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere
for reading. I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was
very helpful. However, one of the points of discussion left me confused. When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B (e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y) How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I
could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true. Any other pointers very welcome. Matt _______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners

I want to add a little more thing that makes me understand this easier:
data Bool = True | False
You can think if True not as a value but as a function from unit to Bool
That being said in Bob's example:
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
...Person is a function from the type String to the type PersonOrPlace
As a conclusion: Haskell is, as they say, "a strong & static typed purely
functional language", everything is either a type or a function. If it's
not a type then it must be a function. You can say that even 0 is a
function from unit to Int so it works quite nice.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Bob Ippolito
T is the type. A and B are the only constructors for values of that type. A and B are not terms in the type language. T is not a term in the value language.
It's simpler to consider a type without any fields in the constructor:
data Bool = True | False
True and False are values, Bool is the type. You can't use Bool as a constructor, and you can't use True or False as a type.
When you add fields it can get a bit more confusing, because the fields of a constructor are types, so it looks like "ValueConstructor1 FieldType1 FieldType2 | ValueConstructor2 FieldType3"
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
To make it more clear, here the types are annotated with <AngleBrackets> and the constructors annotated with [SquareBrackets]:
data <PersonOrPlace> = [Person] <String> | [Place] <String>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Matt Williams < matt.williams45.mw@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere for reading.
I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was very helpful.
However, one of the points of discussion left me confused.
When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B
(e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y)
How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true.
Any other pointers very welcome.
Matt
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners

A short example:
data T = Tag1 Type1 Type2
| Tag2 Type3
-- A type T can contain elements of two different types, which can be
differentiated in a program by their 'Tag'
-- 'Tag1 Type1 Type2' is a product type, just like a cartesian product
of sets. It has elements
-- of the form (Type1, Type2) but written as 'Tag1 Type1 Type2' for
programming convenience.
-- Tag2 Type3 is just Type3, with additional syntax to differentiate it
from Type3.
-- The pipe '|' creates a sum type, just like the union of sets.
-- Overall, you have a type which has elements of the form (Type1,
Type2) or Type3. Written differently so that
-- they can be distinguished from (Type1, Type2) and Type3 elements.
-- (x :: Type1, y :: Type2) is not equal to 'Tag1 x y'.
-- The first has the type (Type1, Type2) and the second has the type T.
-- Thus, Tag1 takes a Type1 and a Type2 and converts them to a T.
-- Tag1 :: Type1 -> Type2 -> T
-- A data constructor, constructs element of type T using elements of
type Type1 and Type2
Read the two pages below, to get more intuition. Will be more helpful if
you come from C and know about unions in that language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_data_type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union
Hope this helps.
On 16 June 2015 at 14:25, Ovidiu Deac
I want to add a little more thing that makes me understand this easier:
data Bool = True | False
You can think if True not as a value but as a function from unit to Bool
That being said in Bob's example:
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
...Person is a function from the type String to the type PersonOrPlace
As a conclusion: Haskell is, as they say, "a strong & static typed purely functional language", everything is either a type or a function. If it's not a type then it must be a function. You can say that even 0 is a function from unit to Int so it works quite nice.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Bob Ippolito
wrote: T is the type. A and B are the only constructors for values of that type. A and B are not terms in the type language. T is not a term in the value language.
It's simpler to consider a type without any fields in the constructor:
data Bool = True | False
True and False are values, Bool is the type. You can't use Bool as a constructor, and you can't use True or False as a type.
When you add fields it can get a bit more confusing, because the fields of a constructor are types, so it looks like "ValueConstructor1 FieldType1 FieldType2 | ValueConstructor2 FieldType3"
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
To make it more clear, here the types are annotated with <AngleBrackets> and the constructors annotated with [SquareBrackets]:
data <PersonOrPlace> = [Person] <String> | [Place] <String>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Matt Williams < matt.williams45.mw@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere for reading.
I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was very helpful.
However, one of the points of discussion left me confused.
When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B
(e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y)
How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true.
Any other pointers very welcome.
Matt
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-- Regards Sumit Sahrawat

Ovidiu, take a look at this eye opener: http://conal.net/blog/posts/everything-is-a-function-in-haskell On 16 June 2015 at 17:35, Sumit Sahrawat, Maths & Computing, IIT (BHU) < sumit.sahrawat.apm13@iitbhu.ac.in> wrote:
A short example:
data T = Tag1 Type1 Type2 | Tag2 Type3
-- A type T can contain elements of two different types, which can be differentiated in a program by their 'Tag'
-- 'Tag1 Type1 Type2' is a product type, just like a cartesian product of sets. It has elements -- of the form (Type1, Type2) but written as 'Tag1 Type1 Type2' for programming convenience.
-- Tag2 Type3 is just Type3, with additional syntax to differentiate it from Type3.
-- The pipe '|' creates a sum type, just like the union of sets.
-- Overall, you have a type which has elements of the form (Type1, Type2) or Type3. Written differently so that -- they can be distinguished from (Type1, Type2) and Type3 elements.
-- (x :: Type1, y :: Type2) is not equal to 'Tag1 x y'. -- The first has the type (Type1, Type2) and the second has the type T. -- Thus, Tag1 takes a Type1 and a Type2 and converts them to a T.
-- Tag1 :: Type1 -> Type2 -> T -- A data constructor, constructs element of type T using elements of type Type1 and Type2
Read the two pages below, to get more intuition. Will be more helpful if you come from C and know about unions in that language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_data_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union
Hope this helps.
On 16 June 2015 at 14:25, Ovidiu Deac
wrote: I want to add a little more thing that makes me understand this easier:
data Bool = True | False
You can think if True not as a value but as a function from unit to Bool
That being said in Bob's example:
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
...Person is a function from the type String to the type PersonOrPlace
As a conclusion: Haskell is, as they say, "a strong & static typed purely functional language", everything is either a type or a function. If it's not a type then it must be a function. You can say that even 0 is a function from unit to Int so it works quite nice.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Bob Ippolito
wrote: T is the type. A and B are the only constructors for values of that type. A and B are not terms in the type language. T is not a term in the value language.
It's simpler to consider a type without any fields in the constructor:
data Bool = True | False
True and False are values, Bool is the type. You can't use Bool as a constructor, and you can't use True or False as a type.
When you add fields it can get a bit more confusing, because the fields of a constructor are types, so it looks like "ValueConstructor1 FieldType1 FieldType2 | ValueConstructor2 FieldType3"
data PersonOrPlace = Person String | Place String
To make it more clear, here the types are annotated with <AngleBrackets> and the constructors annotated with [SquareBrackets]:
data <PersonOrPlace> = [Person] <String> | [Place] <String>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Matt Williams < matt.williams45.mw@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I am sure this is a common mistake, and I am happy to be pointed elsewhere for reading.
I have spent the last couple of days on the Haskell irc channel, which was very helpful.
However, one of the points of discussion left me confused.
When we have a type, T, with constructors A and B
(e.g. data T = A x y z | B x y)
How do I understand the relationship between A, B and T? I had thought I could use the sub-class relationship, but that doesn't seem to be true.
Any other pointers very welcome.
Matt
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-- Regards
Sumit Sahrawat
-- Regards Sumit Sahrawat
participants (6)
-
Bob Ippolito
-
Karl Voelker
-
Martin Vlk
-
Matt Williams
-
Ovidiu Deac
-
Sumit Sahrawat, Maths & Computing, IIT (BHU)