- Haskell-Cafe - Haskell.org

Re: Lexically scoped type variables
by oleg＠pobox.com 27 Nov '04

27 Nov '04

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > In GHC at present, a separate type signature introduces no scoping. For > example: > f :: forall a. a -> a > f x = (x::a) > would be rejected, because the type signature for 'f' does not make > anything scope over the right-hand side, so (x::a) means (x::forall > a.a), which is ill typed. OTH, `f x = (x::a)' will be accepted if this definition appears in an instance declaration, which mentions the type variable `a' somewhere in its `signature'. Incidentally, Hugs differs from GHC in that matter: Hugs considers type variables in an instance declaration just like type variables in a function signature -- having no effect on the local type variables. One might say that Hugs is more consistent in that matter -- OTH, GHC is more convenient, IMHO. The alternative > 1b) It's brought into scope even if the forall is implicit; e.g. > f :: a -> a > f x = (x::a) would seem therefore consistent with the existing behavior of GHC with respect to `instance signatures'. > 2b) Get rid of result type signatures altogether; instead, > use choice (1a) or (1b), and use a separate type signature We can always emulate the result type signatures: that is, instead of writing foo a :: resType = body we can write foo a = result where result body and use "`asTypeOf` result" wherever we need to refer to resType. Or we can write foo a = result where result = cid result cid (_::resType) = body to reduce the result type signature to the argument type signature. OTH, I have personally used result type signatures on many occasions and found them quite helpful. I would be grateful if there were a way to keep them.

2 1

Re: [Haskell] Real life examples
by Keean Schupke 27 Nov '04

27 Nov '04

I've replied to the cafe, as per requests... Peek and poke are instances of the Storable class, I can re-implement storable, and provide the alternative definition by giving ghc some -i<something> arguments. I don't even need to recompile your module, simply providing the alternate Storable module at link time is sufficient. So I restate my point, it _can_ be done in Haskell as it stands at the moment, and yor proposal would break this. Keean. Adrian Hey wrote: >On Friday 26 Nov 2004 11:39 am, Keean Schupke wrote: > > >>Adrian Hey wrote: >> >> >>>Well it can be written in Haskell, but not using a module that was >>>specifically designed to prevent this. >>> >>> >>Well, It can be written in Haskell as it stands at the moment... >> >> > >No it can't. If I have a device driver that's accessing real hardware >(peeking and poking specific memory locations say), how are you going >to emulate that? You need to make peek and poke parameters of the >module. > >That is certainly possible, but if the author of the driver module >didn't anticipate your emulation needs, you'd be stuck I think. > >Regards >-- >Adrian Hey > > >_______________________________________________ >Haskell mailing list >Haskell(a)haskell.org >http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > >

2 4

Re: Yet another IO initializer: Effectful declarations and an ACIO monad
by George Russell 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

Ian Stark wrote (snipped): > Way back in this thread, Koen Claessen mentioned the idea of a commutative > version of the IO monad for handling things with identity. That doesn't quite > do it, but I have a refinement that might. The thing is to focus on IO > computations that are: > > a) central -- their effect commutes with every other IO action > b) affine -- their effect is not directly observable, and can be discarded. Unfortunately I have a number of examples where I use global variables with initialisation actions which cannot conceivably be proven to be central & affine by the compiler. For example, where I want to call up an external program (such as wish) which I will later use for doing graphics. The Haskell libraries would run into a similar problem when they tried to open stdin/stdout/stderr. Or indeed when they tried to implement RandomGen, which I presume is going to want to get at the system clock to seed the random number generator. My guess is that if we were to have top-level <- actions where the actions were restricted to those certified to be ACIO, it would not be very long before GHC would implement an unsafeForceACIO function ...

3 4

[Haskell] Lexically scoped type variables
by Martin Sulzmann 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

Hi, let me answer your questions by comparing what's implemented in Chameleon. (For details see http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sulzmann/chameleon/download/haskell.html#scoped) > ---- QUESTION 1 ----- > > In short, I'm considering adopting the Mondrian/Chameleon rule for GHC. > There are two variations > > 1a) In the example, 'a' is only brought into scope in the > right hand side if there's an explicit 'forall' written by > the programmer > 1b) It's brought into scope even if the forall is implicit; e.g. > f :: a -> a > f x = (x::a) > > I'm inclined to (1a). Coments? > Currently, Chameleon goes for 1b), i.e. foralls are implicit. I agree that 1a) might help the programmer to immediately see which variables are bound by the outer scope. > > ----- QUESTION 2 ------ > > [...] > > The alternatives I can see are > > 2a) Make an arbitrary choice of (A) or (B); GHC currently chooses (B) > 2b) Decide that the scoped type variables arising from pattern > bindings scope only over the right hand side, not over > the body of the let > 2b) Get rid of result type signatures altogether; instead, > use choice (1a) or (1b), and use a separate type signature > instead. > > Opinions? > Chameleon goes for 2c) A Chameleon speciality is that we can write f ::: a->a f x = True f ::: a->a states that f has type a->a for some a. ::: follows the same scoping rules as :: Then, the following statement let f (x::[a],ys) = <rhs> in <body> (I assume that x::[a] states here that x has type [a] for some a) can be encoded as let f ::: ([a],b)->c f (x::[a],ys) = <rhs> in <body> The main motivation behind Chameleon's lexically scoped annotations was to allow for programs such as class Eval a b where eval::a->b f :: Eval a (b,c) => a->b f x = let g :: (b,c) g = eval x in fst g As Josef pointed out, there are also examples where it might be useful that some inner annotations refer to variable a from the outer annotation. Martin

1 0

Re: Global Variables and IO initializers
by George Russell 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

Marcin wrote (snipped): > I think global variables are a lot less evil if they behave as if they > were dynamically scoped, like Lisp special variables. > > That is, there is a construct which gives the variable a new mutable > binding visible in the given IO action. It's used more often than > assignment. Assignment is still available though. I agree entirely. The fact that declaring global variables using unsafePerformIO introduces an artificial notion of "global" and forces it on every part of the program is a major disadvantage which we haven't heard enough about in this discussion. It prevents you doing all sorts of things. It's bad for parallelism. It prevents you running two independent copies of a (main) action. It prevents you writing a Haskell controller which runs over Haskell actions as subprograms.

1 0

[Haskell] Re: Global Variables and IO initializers
by George Russell 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

> This is funny. When I got no immediate reaction from you, I started > implementing it myself. I ended up with something similar. It has less > features but is also a lot simpler. This is the interface: > > initGlobal :: Typeable a => a -> IO () > getGlobal :: Typeable a => IO a Your implementation is probably much simpler than mine because you don't implement withEmptyDict. I'm really quite keen about withEmptyDict, because one of the MAJOR conceptual problems I have with unsafePerformIO global variables is that you only get one universe, corresponding to the Haskell program. There shouldn't really be a single "the Haskell program" anyway; imagine something like GHC or an operating system written in Haskell which run sub-systems which require their own global variables. Or imagine a program split between lots of processors where, for efficiency reasons, you don't want everyone to have to refer to the same set of global variables.o > Storing (TypeRep,Dynamic) pairs is redundant, since Dynamics already > contain their own TypeRep (that is how they are made to work). It is, but I'm not sure if it can be avoided without using stuff not in the standard libraries. > I also use a list for the dictionary; and I share your view about > TypeRep badly needing an Ord instance (probably trivial to provide > but I could be wrong). Even better would be a hashable integer. TypeRep actually is implemented internally on GHC using a hashcons'd unique integer, so exposing it should be trivial ...

3 2

Interview with David Roundy on darcs and Haskell
by Josef Svenningsson 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

Hi all, At osdir there is a nice interview with David Roundy about darcs, the revision control system written in Haskell. He has a few comments about Haskell as well. Read it here: http://osdir.com/Article2571.phtml This was also covered on /. (which is where I found it). /Josef

1 0

Yet another IO initializer: Effectful declarations and an ACIO monad
by Ian.Stark＠ed.ac.uk 26 Nov '04

26 Nov '04

Way back in this thread, Koen Claessen mentioned the idea of a commutative version of the IO monad for handling things with identity. That doesn't quite do it, but I have a refinement that might. The thing is to focus on IO computations that are: a) central -- their effect commutes with every other IO action b) affine -- their effect is not directly observable, and can be discarded. Thus an element u of (IO a) is affine central if for all v::IO b and w::IO c, do { x <- u; v } = v (affine) do { x <- u; y <-v; w } = do { y <- v; x <- u; w } (central) where '=' is observational equivalence. For example, we would expect newMVar x :: IO (MVar a) to be affine central; similarly newIORef, and newStdGen for random number generators. If we define an ACIO monad for affine central IO expression, then we can safely use these in toplevel declarations: declare x <- u -- x::a, u::ACIO a declare count <- newIORef 0 -- count :: IORef Int declare flag <- newMVar True -- flag :: MVar Bool The semantics of such declarations would be to gather them all to the start of a program, whose meaning is now do { declarations; main } Because all declarations are ACIO: they can appear anywhere in the source; be executed at any point between the start of the program and the use of their value; and if there is no such use, need never be executed at all. In any event, the right-hand side of each declaration will be evaluated, and perform its side-effect, at most once. The declared values (x, count, flag) are pure values and do not have IO types. However, almost all their uses (bumping the counter, reading the flag) will live in the IO monad. Like stdIn and stdOut. Also, just because these declarations are toplevel doesn't mean they are globally visible: they are lexically scoped within standard module namespaces. I conjecture that when used "safely" the {-# NOINLINE #-} unsafePerformIO idiom is in fact being applied to IO expressions that are affine central; which means they could be put in ACIO and used as declarations instead. -- Ian Stark http://www.ed.ac.uk/~stark LFCS, School of Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Scotland

2 2

RE: [Haskell] Lexically scoped type variables
by Josef Svenningsson 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

Let me just begin by sharing my experience with scoped type variables. I've found them very useful in a project were I was to generalize a substantial code base. Many of the functions had local definitions whose type were simply not expressible without scoped type variables. During this work I found an interesting interplay between multi parameter type classes and scoped type variables. An example would look something like this: f :: C a b c => a -> b f a = .... let g = ... The important thing to note is that the type variable c in f's signature occurs neither in the argument nor the result type of f. Hence c is not bindable by lexically scoped type variables. But suppose c is part of g's type. Then we still have no way of expressing g's type! This thing has bitten me and so I welcome the change you're planning. As for your questions I would prefer 1b although I don't think it is a big deal. For your second question I would go for 2c (which you've called 2b :). That's because I don't use result type signatures. Other people will surely disagree. Cheers, /Josef > -----Original Message----- > From: haskell-bounces(a)haskell.org [mailto:haskell-bounces@haskell.org] On > Behalf Of Simon Peyton-Jones > Sent: den 25 november 2004 11:44 > To: haskell(a)haskell.org > Subject: [Haskell] Lexically scoped type variables > > | This is a great example, thanks for posting it. However, I feel like > | the real problem in this example is the lexically-scoped type > | variables declared with your function f. > > Paul's message gives me an excuse to consult the Haskell list about the > design of lexically scoped type variables. I have a two particular > questions I'd like your advice about. (This is nothing to do with > monomorphism restriction, or Lennart's original puzzle.) > > I'm sending this message to the main Haskell list, to maximise > readership, but I suggest that > > you reply to haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org > > Thereby to avoid spamming the main Haskell list, which is meant to be > low-bandwidth. I believe I've set the reply-to field of this message to > achieve this goal. [Perhaps others can do the same?!] > > Simon > > ---- Background ---- > > First, for background you might want to glance at "Lexically scoped type > variables", an unpublished paper available at > http://research.microsoft.com/%7Esimonpj/papers/scoped-tyvars > I don't want to take time in this message to discuss why we want scoped > type variables; I'll just take it for granted here. > > One design choice discussed in the paper, and implemented in GHC, is > that we can bring new lexically-scoped type variables into scope by > mentioning them in a pattern type signature: > f (x::a) = .... > Here 'a' is a name for the type of x, and 'a' scopes over f's body, and > can be mentioned in type signatures in f's body. Sometimes one wants to > name types in the result* of f, rather than it its *arguments*. For > example > head (xs::[a]) :: a = ... > Here, the ":: a" before the "=" gives the type of head's result. If a > result type signature binds a type variable, that type variable scopes > over the right hand side of the definition. > > In GHC, it's not necessary for the type that 'a' names to be a type > variable; it could be Int, for example: > f (x::a) = x + (1::Int) > Already this embodies several design choices. For example, we know that > 'a' is a *binding* for 'a' because there is no 'a' already in scope, > otherwise it'd be an *occurrence* of 'a'. (An alternative would be to > mark binding sites somehow.) Also once could require that 'a' names a > type variable rather than an arbitrary type. But for this message I > want to take GHC's design as given. > > ---- QUESTION 1 ----- > > In GHC at present, a separate type signature introduces no scoping. For > example: > f :: forall a. a -> a > f x = (x::a) > would be rejected, because the type signature for 'f' does not make > anything scope over the right-hand side, so (x::a) means (x::forall > a.a), which is ill typed. > > An obvious alternative, taken up by (among others) Mondrian and > Chamaeleon, is to say that > > the top-level quantified variables of a separate type signature > scope over the right hand side of the binding > > In the above example, then, the 'a' bound by the 'forall' would scope > over the right hand side of 'f'. > > I've argued against this in the past, because the construct (forall a. > <type>) patently scopes 'a' only over <type>. But my resolve is > weakening. It's just too convenient! Furthermore, it binds a *rigid* > type variable (i.e. 'a' really must name a type variable) and that's > important for GADTs... which strengthens the case. > > In short, I'm considering adopting the Mondrian/Chameleon rule for GHC. > There are two variations > > 1a) In the example, 'a' is only brought into scope in the > right hand side if there's an explicit 'forall' written by > the programmer > 1b) It's brought into scope even if the forall is implicit; e.g. > f :: a -> a > f x = (x::a) > > I'm inclined to (1a). Coments? > > > ----- QUESTION 2 ------ > > Question 2 concerns degenerate bindings. First, consider pattern > bindings. For example: > let > (x::[a], y) = <rhs> > in <body> > The LHS of the let-binding is a pair, so it's called a pattern binding. > What should the scope of 'a' be? GHC's current story is that "it is the > same as the scope of term variables bound in the same pattern", so just > as 'x' scopes over both <rhs> and <body>, so does 'a'. And that in turn > means that we can't generalise over 'a', so 'x' is monomorphic. > > An alternative would be to say that type variables bound in a pattern > binding scope only over the right-hand side. > > ---- The degenerate case: variable bindings ---- > > Now the nasty case > > let > f :: a -> a = \x -> x > in (f True, f 'c') > > Is the binding for 'f' > (A) a (degenerate) function binding no arguments, but with a > result signature? > or (B) a (degenerate) pattern binding with pattern (var::type)? > > If we consider it to be (A) then arguably 'a' scopes only over the > right-hand side, and f gets the polymorphic type (forall a. a-> a). > > If we consider it to be (B) then currently 'a' scopes over the right > hand side and the body of the let, so 'f' has to be monomorphic, with > type ty->ty for some ty; and no ty will do, so the program is rejected. > > The trouble is that the binding is patently *both* (A) and (B). This > gives no difficulty in Haskell 98, because there's no difference in > treatment; but GHC's current rules for scoped type variables do > distinguish the two. > > The alternatives I can see are > > 2a) Make an arbitrary choice of (A) or (B); GHC currently chooses (B) > 2b) Decide that the scoped type variables arising from pattern > bindings scope only over the right hand side, not over > the body of the let > 2b) Get rid of result type signatures altogether; instead, > use choice (1a) or (1b), and use a separate type signature > instead. > > Opinions? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell(a)haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

1 0

Re: Global Variables and IO initializers
by Benjamin Franksen 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

[encouraging everybody to reply on haskell-cafe] On Tuesday 23 November 2004 12:02, you wrote: > Thanks to the encouraging post > > http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell/2004-November/014748.html > > from Benjamin Franksen, I have implemented > my proposal which allows the user to define new global variables without > unsafePerformIO, NOINLINE and other such horrors. This is funny. When I got no immediate reaction from you, I started implementing it myself. I ended up with something similar. It has less features but is also a lot simpler. This is the interface: initGlobal :: Typeable a => a -> IO () getGlobal :: Typeable a => IO a Some remarks: o The separation into two modules is only historical. o I use an MVar internally, not an IORef; since it is not exposed, no indefinite blocking can occur. It's just a mutex around the dictionary. o Storing (TypeRep,Dynamic) pairs is redundant, since Dynamics already contain their own TypeRep (that is how they are made to work). o Both our implementations use unsafePerformIO in an unsafe manner, which is why the NOINLINE flag is used. o I also use a list for the dictionary; and I share your view about TypeRep badly needing an Ord instance (probably trivial to provide but I could be wrong). *************** On a related note, there was some discussion recently about which IO actions should be considered as 'harmless' so that they are allowed for the proposed top-level '<-' bindings, and how to characterize them in an elegant way. Here is yet another solution: The only things allowed at top-level (other than pure values) will be unique labels (such as provided by Data.Unique). Then we take all the newXXX actions out of whatever monad they live in and provide them as pure functions that take a Unique as additional argument: newXXX :: Unique -> a -> XXX a This might be a bit tricky to do efficiently. Anyway, a Haskell program could then create top-level Unique labels instead of top-level XXX vars: myGlobalVarLabel <- unique myGlobalMVar = newMVar myGlobalVarLabel "initial content" The concrete syntax could be made even simpler (and clearer), i.e. without the '<-' operator: unique myGlobalVarLabel Advantages: o No question of what is in SafeIO and what is not. o No question of when top-level IO actions are performed. *************** Now what about combining the two aproaches? The point here is that in Haskell we can easily create new unique labels at the top-level without resorting to any kind of unsafe operations: data Uniq1 = Uniq1 data Uniq2 = Uniq2 ... Only these have not the same but different types. So we need a way to map them to a single type in such a way that their uniqueness is preserved. We already have such a tool and it is called "deriving Typeable": unique = typeOf type Unique = TypeRep data Uniq1 = Uniq1 deriving Typeable data Uniq2 = Uniq2 deriving Typeable Our unique labels can now simply be defined as label1 = unique Uniq1 label2 = unique Uniq2 and our global variables as global1 = functionalNewMVar label1 True global2 = functionalNewMVar label1 (117::Int) I think this is most elegant, although there remains the questions of an efficient implementation of functionalNewXXX. Ben

3 4