#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: None/Unknown | Unknown/Multiple Test Case: | Difficulty: Unknown Blocking: | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Changes (by carter): * type: bug => feature request * milestone: 7.8.1 => 7.10.1 Comment: Though I imagine theres some subtleties to adding such machinery, but it might be a great way to allow more "proofs by computation" to work out in Haskell -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:2 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: None/Unknown | Unknown/Multiple Test Case: | Difficulty: Unknown Blocking: | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: #4259 --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by carter): excellent points that i probably agree with (and i'll have to dig into that other ticket as time permits) Hrm, another way of looking at it is that i'd be ok with having to come up with sort of induction principles or the like that let me give the type checker the proofs! Currently we dont have a decent story that plays well with equality constraints. so I either need to "lie about the types" and do something like {{{ reverseShape :: Shape r -> Shape r reverseShape Nil = Nil reverseShape shs@(anIx :* rest) = go shs Nil where --- too weakly typed go :: Shape a -> Shape b -> Shape r -- want r= PSum a b go Nil res = unsafeCoerce $ res -- 0 + b = b ==> b=r go (ix :* more ) res = go more (ix :* res) --- 1+a + b = r }}} (which has a cast in the base case, but is ok othewise) OR try to have some sort of "proof" mapping, which honestly dones't work, and to even "write" the terms required {{{ {-# LANGUAGE AllowAmbiguousTypes #-} }}} that attempt looked like the following {{{ assocSumSucc :: Shape (PSum ('S r2) b) -> Shape ( PSum r2 ('S b)) assocSumSucc = unsafeCoerce assocSumSuccBad :: Shape (PSum a b) -> Shape ( PSum c d) assocSumSuccBad = unsafeCoerce }}} this doesn't quite work, because neither interacts with the equality constraint solving! So the only sane thing of that sort is {{{ shapeCoerce :: Shape a -> Shape b shapeCoerce = unsafeCoerce }}} which is honestly pretty bad! (and apply this in the recursive case) these as all (unlike the other solution inline above) pretty bad, because they break tail calls. I guess what i want is a way have having "proof principles" or something that i could build, which would interact well with the types. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:4 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: None/Unknown | Unknown/Multiple Test Case: | Difficulty: Unknown Blocking: | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: #4259 --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by carter): honestly i just want a way to check things, my ticket here is just noting limits that happen with type families. I'm open to anything that has a sane usability story and a sane engineering story (on the ghc and users sides both). -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:6 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: None/Unknown | Unknown/Multiple Test Case: | Difficulty: Unknown Blocking: | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: #4259 --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by carter): thanks! this is great! Would I want to compare the core? (or just use criterion to benchmark?). I'll add that to my infinite todo list. This example seems to work only in ghc 7.8, how would i adapt those ideas to work on 7.6? (can I even?) that said, having more examples like this about how to prove things in haskell is probably a good idea! Also, figuring out how to erase such proofs as much as possible also would likely be worth while. I'm happy to help contribute a few braincells to chewing on that post 7.8 -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:8 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.10.1 Component: Compiler (Type checker) | Version: 7.7 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: None/Unknown | Unknown/Multiple Test Case: | Difficulty: Unknown Blocking: | Blocked By: | Related Tickets: #4259 --------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by goldfire): After being prodded via email to consider this issue further, I've made a tiny bit of progress, but nowhere near an actual solution. It turns out that the closed type family case and the open type family case can indeed be considered separately. Why? Because the compatibility check can usefully be turned off in the closed type family case, but not in the open one. Turning off the compatibility check for closed families reduces the number of reductions possible, but doesn't threaten soundness. On the other hand, turning off the compatibility check for unordered, open families destroys soundness. So, I thought about this: during the compatibility check, I normalized both substituted RHSs, but, during the normalization, I ignored compatibility. This seems like a nice, conservative check, but less conservative than the current one, requiring coincidence. It turned out that implementing the check above was non-trivial (it required delicate ordering among family instances), so I did the following (even better) thing instead (this is available in the `wip/recurs-compat` branch): - The existing compatibility check was left unchanged. - During type family simplification, an extra check was added, in parallel with the apartness check. (This follows more closely what is written up in [http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~eir/papers/2014/axioms/axioms-extended.pdf the paper].) Say the current, matching equation is `e` and the previous one under consideration is `d`. Suppose the target is `t`. - We unify `d` with `t`, possibly producing unifying substitution `ds`. (If unification fails, the new check fails, and no reduction happens. But, note that if `d` and `t` are apart, then the apartness check succeeds, allowing reduction.) - Let `es` be the substitution (sure to exist) that witnesses that `e` matches `t`. - Now, we check if `normalize(ds(d_rhs)) = normalize(ds(es(e_rhs)))`. If this check succeeds, we allow reduction by equation `e`. - The `normalize` function here is special: if it is reducing a closed type family and needs to do a compatibility check, that check ''does not normalize''. Without this restriction, we would often loop, as demonstrated below. There are a few natural questions at this point: - '''Is this type safe?''' I haven't proved anything. But, I believe that it is type safe as long as all type families terminate. Why? Because the type safety proof (appearing in the paper) doesn't seem to be disturbed by this change. That proof requires only ''local'' confluence, meaning that it can take an arbitrary number of steps to recombine two terms after they have diverged. However, I believe that this is '''not''' type-safe in the presence of non-terminating type families. Why? Because the proof in the non-terminating case requires a ''local diamond'' property, which requires single-step recombining after divergence. The normalization step explicitly throws that out. I don't know of a way to repair the proof, so I'm led to think that the property is indeed broken. I have no counter- example, though. - '''Does it work in practice?''' A bit. Take the `PSum` family in comment:3. In GHC 7.8, the third equation won't fire because it conflicts with the second. With the extra check as described here, the third equation can indeed fire. But, the fourth can't, because the compatibility check against the third requires normalization internally to work. I don't see an easy solution to that problem. - '''What about axioms in Core?''' My work didn't touch axioms. So, `-dcore-lint` would fail in my branch if the new checks were used. A real solution here would require changes to Core, essentially to record exactly how two equations are compatible. Given that the proof of compatibility (with normalization) might be arbitrarily large, it would seem to require some new form that is an explicit witness of compatibility. Of course, we could just bake the normalization step into the Core type-checking algorithm, but normalization is potentially non-terminating, so doing so breaks the tenet of "type-checking Core is simple and decidable". - '''Where to go from here?''' I believe that the core problem is that we're currently finding some sort of least fixed point of compatibility, where we really want the greatest fixed point. That is, if we assume that the third and fourth equations of `PSum` are compatible, then we can prove they're compatible. This recursive proof would be productive (that is, there would be a new `'S` constructor), so I think the idea isn't entirely silly. I haven't worked out any details, though. - '''What's the looping example?''' Check this out: {{{ type family F a where F [a] = F a F b = b }}} This is a simple, terminating type family. Yet, if we try to simplify `F c` (which should be stuck), a fully recursive compatibility check would loop, as the check would, in turn, need to simplify `F a`, which is isomorphic to what we started with. Given the complications here (especially the thought of how to update Core), I'm tabling this for now. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:10 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler

#8423: contraint solver doesn't reduce reducible closed type family expressions (even with undecidable instances!) -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: carter | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.0.1 Component: Compiler (Type | Version: 7.7 checker) | Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: #4259 | Differential Revisions: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Changes (by jstolarek): * cc: jan.stolarek@… (removed) * cc: jstolarek (added) -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8423#comment:14 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler