- Haskell-Cafe - Haskell.org

Re: O'Haskell OOP Polymorphic Functions
by Ashley Yakeley 30 Jan '01

30 Jan '01

At 2001-01-30 02:37, Fergus Henderson wrote: >class BaseClass s where > downcast_to_derived :: s -> Maybe Derived Exactly what I was trying to avoid, since now every base class needs to know about every derived class. This isn't really a practical way to build an extensible type hierarchy. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

2 1

Re: O'Haskell OOP Polymorphic Functions
by Ashley Yakeley 30 Jan '01

30 Jan '01

At 2001-01-17 17:03, Lennart Augustsson wrote: >You seem to want dynamic type tests. This is another feature, and >sometimes a useful one. But it requires carrying around types at >runtime. Yes. I tried to do that myself by adding a field, but it seems it can't be done. >You might want to look at existential types; it is a similar feature. I seem to run into a similar problem: -- class BaseClass s data Base = forall a. BaseClass a => Base a class (BaseClass s) => DerivedClass s data Derived = forall a. DerivedClass a => Derived a upcast :: Derived -> Base upcast (Derived d) = Base d downcast :: Base -> Maybe Derived -- How do I define downcast? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

3 3

HScript
by Eric Allen Wohlstadter 30 Jan '01

30 Jan '01

I have tried e-mailing the authors of HScript with my problems but they seem unresponsive. I was hoping maybe someone out there could help me. When I tried to run the demos I got an error "Could not find Prelude.hs", so I changed the hugsPath variable in regedit to point to hugs/lib. Then I got an error "Could not find Int". So I added hugs/lib/exts. Now I get the error "Addr.hs (line 23): Unknown primitive reference to addrToInt". Eric Wohlstadter

2 1

Re: 'any' and 'all' compared with the rest of the Report
by Jan-Willem Maessen 28 Jan '01

28 Jan '01

Bjorn Lisper <lisper(a)it.kth.se> replies to my reply: > >My current work includes [among other things] ways to eliminate this > >problem---that is, we may do a computation eagerly and defer or > >discard any errors. > > What you basically have to do is to treat purely data-dependent errors (like > division by zero, or indexing an array out of bounds) as values rather than > events. Indeed. We can have a class of deferred exception values similar to IEEE NaNs. [later]: > Beware that some decisions have to be taken regarding how error > values should interact with bottom. (For instance, should we have > error + bottom = error or error + bottom = bottom?) The choice affects which > evaluation strategies will be possible. Actually, as far as I can tell we have absolute freedom in this respect. What happens when you run the following little program? \begin{code} forever x = forever x bottomInt :: Int bottomInt = error "Evaluating bottom is naughty" + forever () main = print bottomInt \end{code} I don't know of anything in the Haskell language spec that forces us to choose whether to signal the error or diverge in this case (though it's clear we must do one or the other). Putting strong constraints on evaluation order would cripple a lot of the worker/wrapper-style optimizations that (eg) GHC users depend on for fast code. We want the freedom to demand strict arguments as early as possible; the consequence is we treat all bottoms equally, even if they exhibit different behavior in practice. This simplification is a price of "clean equational semantics", and one I'm more than willing to pay. -Jan-Willem Maessen jmaessen(a)mit.edu [PS - I've deliberately dodged the issue of program-level exception handling mechanisms and the like.]

3 3

Re: A clarification...
by Jan-Willem Maessen 26 Jan '01

26 Jan '01

qrczak(a)knm.org.pl (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) further clarifies my clarification: > > case ERROR of x -> expr => ERROR glb expr[?/x] > > The subject of errors vs. bottoms is discussed in > http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/imprecise-exceptions.ps.gz Indeed. I crawled through my stack of electronic papers, and couldn't find the reference. As I noted in my earlier messages, I was deliberately dodging the issue of *catching* exceptions, as it really requires a thorough treatment. :-) The "?" in the above reduction is their special 0 term. They equate divergence with exceptional convergence within the functional calculus for the reasons I outlined [I reconstructed those reasons from memory and my own experience, so differences are due to my faulty recollection]. Their notion of refinement justifies the reduction I mentioned in my mail: > > case ERROR of x -> expr => ERROR In all, an excellent paper for those who are interested in this topic. -Jan-Willem Maessen

1 0

A clarification...
by Jan-Willem Maessen 26 Jan '01

26 Jan '01

Marko Schuetz <MarkoSchuetz(a)web.de> replies to me as follows: > > He uses this, and an argument based on currying, to show that strict > > functions ought to force their arguments left to right. > > I can't see where I did. I argued that distinguishing between error > and bottom seems to not leave much choice for bottom + error. You're right, sorry. I misread the following from your earlier message: > So I'd say error + bottom \equiv bottom and bottom + error \equiv > bottom. As you noted: > and you want, say, error + bottom \equiv error then + can no longer be > strict in its second argument.... I'd managed to turn this around in my head. Nonetheless, my fundamental argument stands: If we separate "bottom" and "error", we have a few choices operationally, and I'm not fond of them: 1) Make "error" a representable value. This appears closest to what you were describing above: case ERROR of x -> expr => expr [ERROR/x] This is tricky for unboxed types (especially Ints; floats and pointers aren't so hard; note that we need more than one distinguishable error value in practice if we want to tell the user something useful about what went wrong). At this point, by the way, it's not a big leap to flatten the domain as is done with IEEE NaNs, so that monotonicity wrt errors is a language-level phenomenon rather than a semantic one and we can handle exceptions by testing for error values. 2) Weaken the algebraic theory as I discussed in my last message. 3) Reject an operational reading of "case" as forcing evaluation and continuing and have it "do something special" when it encounters error: case ERROR of x -> expr => ERROR glb expr[?/x] >From the programmer's perspective, I'd argue that it's *better* to signal signal-able errors whenever possible, rather than deferring them. If nothing else, a signaled error is easier to diagnose than nontermination! Thus, I'd LIKE: error + bottom === error But I'm willing to acknowledge that I can't get this behavior consistently, except with some sort of fair parallel execution. I'm doing something along the lines of (3), but I abandon execution immediately on seeing error---which is consistent only if error==bottom: case ERROR of x -> expr => ERROR [Indeed, the compiler performs this reduction statically where possible, as it gets rid of a lot of dead code.] I defer the signaling of errors only if the expression in question is being evaluated eagerly; for this there is no "case" construct involved. -Jan-Willem Maessen

2 1

Re: 'any' and 'all' compared with the rest of the Report
by Jan-Willem Maessen 26 Jan '01

26 Jan '01

Marko Schuetz <MarkoSchuetz(a)web.de> starts an explanation of bottom vs. error with an assumption which I think is dangerous: > Assuming we want > > \forall s : bottom \le s > > including s = error, then we should also have error \not\le > bottom. He uses this, and an argument based on currying, to show that strict functions ought to force their arguments left to right. This seems to me to be another instance of an age-old debate in programming language design/semantics: If we can in practice observe evaluation order, should we therefore specify that evaluation order? This is a debate that's raged for quite a while among users of imperative languages. Some languages (Scheme comes to mind) very clearly state that this behavior is left unspecified. Fortunately, for the Haskell programmer the debate is considerably simpler, as only the behavior of "wrong" programs is affected. I am more than willing to be a little ambiguous about the error behavior of programs, by considering "bottom" and "error" to be one and the same. As I noted in my last message, this allows some optimizations which would otherwise not be allowed. Here's the worker-wrapper optimization at work; I'll use explicit unboxing to make the evaluation clear. forever x = forever x -- throughout. addToForever :: Int -> Int addToForever b = forever () + b main = print (addToForever (error "Bottom is naughty!")) == -- expanding the definition of + addToForever b = case forever () of I# a# -> case b of I# b# -> a# +# b# == -- At this point strictness analysis reveals that addToForever -- is strict in its argument. As a result, we perform the worker- -- wrapper transformation: addToForever b = case b of I# b# -> addToForever_worker b# addToForever_worker b# = let b = I# b# in case forever () of I# a# -> case b of I# b# -> a# +# b# == -- The semantics have changed---b will now be evaluated before -- forever(). I've experimented with versions of Haskell where order of evaluation did matter. It was a giant albatross around our neck---there is simply no way to cleanly optimize programs in such a setting without doing things like termination analysis to justify the nice old transformations. If you rely on precise results from an analysis to enable transformation, you all-too-frequently miss obvious opportunities. For this reason I *very explicitly* chose not to make such distinctions in my work. In general, making too many semantic distinctions weakens the power of algebraic semantics. Two levels---bottom and everything else---seems about the limit of acceptable complexity. If you look at the work on free theorems you quickly discover that even having bottom in the language makes life a good deal more difficult, and really we'd like to have completely flat domains. I'd go as far as saying that it also gives us some prayer of explaining our algebraic semantics to the programmer. A complex algebra becomes too bulky to reason about when things act stragely. Bottom is making things hard enough. -Jan-Willem Maessen PS - Again, we don't try to recover from errors. This is where the comparison with IEEE arithmetic breaks down: NaNs are specifically designed so you can _test_ for them and take action. I'll also point out that infinities are _not_ exceptional values; they're semantically "at the same level" as regular floats---so the following comparison is a bit disingenuous: > If error \equiv bottom and you extend, say, Int with NaNs, how do you > implement arithmetic such that Infinity + Infinity \equiv Infinity and > Infinity/Infinity \equiv Invalid Operation?

2 1

'any' and 'all' compared with the rest of the Report
by Jan-Willem Maessen 25 Jan '01

25 Jan '01

(Note, I've kept this on Haskell-cafe) Bjorn Lisper wrote (several messages back): > ... What I in turn would like to add is that specifications like > > any p = or . map p > > are on a higher level of abstraction ... > The first specification is, for instance, directly data parallel > which facilitates an implementation on a parallel machine or in hardware. As was pointed out in later discussion, the specification of "or" uses foldr and is thus not amenable to data parallelism. On which subject Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma(a)info.unicaen.fr> later noted: > On the other hand, having an even more generic logarithmic iterator > for associative operations seems to me a decent idea. In my master's thesis, "Eliminating Intermediate Lists in pH using Local Transformations", I proposed doing just that, and called the resulting operator "reduce" in line with Bird's list calculus. I then gave rules for performing deforestation so that sublists could be traversed in parallel. The compiler can choose from many possible definitions of reduce, including: reduce = foldr reduce f z = foldl (flip f) z reduce = divideAndConquer (most of the complexity of the analysis focuses on making this choice intelligently; the rest could be re-stated RULES-style just as the GHC folks have done with foldr/build.) We've been using this stuff for around 6-7 years now. Fundamentally, many associative operators have a "handedness" which we disregard at our peril. For example, defining "or" in terms of foldl as above is very nearly correct until handed an infinite list, but it performs really badly regardless of the input. Thus, we need a richer set of primitives (and a lot more complexity) if we really want to capture "what is most commonly a good idea" as opposed to "what is safe". For example, our deforestation pass handles "concat" as part of its internal representation, since no explicit definition using reduction is satisfactory: concat = foldr (++) [] -- least work, no parallelism concat = reduce (++) [] -- parallelizes well, but could pessimize -- the program For this reason, it's hard to use "reduce" directly in more than a handful of prelude functions. We use reduce a lot, but only after uglification of the prelude definitions to convince the compiler to "guess right" about the appropriate handedness. There is also the problem of error behavior; if we unfold an "or" eagerly to exploit its data parallelism we may uncover errors, even if it's finite: > or [True, error "This should never be evaluated"] True My current work includes [among other things] ways to eliminate this problem---that is, we may do a computation eagerly and defer or discard any errors. -Jan-Willem Maessen My Master's Thesis is at: ftp://csg-ftp.lcs.mit.edu/pub/papers/theses/maessen-sm.ps.gz A shorter version (with some refinements) is found in: ftp://csg-ftp.lcs.mit.edu/pub/papers/csgmemo/memo-370.ps.gz

2 1

Re: 'any' and 'all' compared with the rest of the Report
by Iavor Diatchki 23 Jan '01

23 Jan '01

hello i myself am not an experienced Haskell user, so please correct me if i am wrong. it is difficult in general to reason about the performance of lazy programs, so i don't think one can assume much. in particular i dont think 'any' and 'all' will perform in linear space. here is why i think so: take an example when 'any' is applied to some list (x:xs) and someone is actually interested in the result: any p (x:xs) 1. -> (or . map p) (x:xs) 2. -> or (map p (x:xs)) 3. -> foldr (||) False (map p (x:xs)) [at this stage we need to know what what kind of list is (map p (x:xs)) i.e. empty or a cons thing, so we need to do some evaluation] 4. -> foldr (||) False (p x : map p xs) 5. -> p x || (foldr (||) False (map p xs)) [at this stage we need to know what kind of thing is p x, i.e. True or False, so we need to evaluate p x] 6. -> if p x is True we are done (result True) 7. -> if p x is False the result is (foldr (||) False (map p xs)) and we go back to 3. note that p x has become garbage and so it doesnt really take up any space, so one really needs only enough space to process the list one element at a time. what causes problems is the need to create unnecessary cons cells (i.e. the evaluation after 3.). this is bad because it takes time. of course it only adds a constant so the complexity is the same but in practise programs run slower. this is where i would expect a good compiler to do some optimisation, i.e to remove the need for the intermediate list. i like the idea of programming at a higher level, as i believe it produces "better structured" programs. what i mean is that one manages to capture certain aspects of a program, which would be obscured if one always used explicit recursion. i think higher order functions like maps and folds really go a long way toward structuring functional programs. in a way this is simillar to using loops instead of explicit gotos in procedural programs. anyways these are my deep thought on the matter :) bye iavor On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:35:19PM -0600, Eric Shade wrote: ... > > Then I get to 'any' and 'all', whose specification requires linear > time and *linear* space when it should run in constant space. (By the > way, I checked and GHC does *not* use the Prelude definitions but > rather the obvious recursive ones, and most of its optimizations based > on "good consumers/producers" use meta-linguistic rewrite rules. So > without knowing the specific optimizations that a compiler provides, I > think it's safe to assume that the Prelude 'any' and 'all' *will* > require linear space.) ... -- +---------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ |Iavor S. Diatchki | email: diatchki(a)cse.ogi.edu | |Dept. of Computer Science | web: http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~diatchki | |Oregon Graduate Institute | tel: 5037481631 | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

3 3

Re: Specifications of 'any', 'all', 'findIndices'
by D. Tweed 23 Jan '01

23 Jan '01

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Mark Tullsen wrote: > Johannes Waldmann wrote: > > ... > > I'd rather write clear code, than worry about efficiency too early. > > Who said this, "premature optimization is the root of all evil". > > I've always attributed this to Donald Knuth: > > Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming. In his paper on the errors of TeX (no proper ref but it's reprinted in his book on Literate Programming) he calls it Hoare's dictum (i.e. Tony Hoare) although the context suggests that this isn't an `official name'. Dunno if Hoare heard it from someone else though... ___cheers,_dave________________________________________________________ www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/pi.htm|tweed's law: however many computers email: tweed(a)cs.bris.ac.uk | you have, half your time is spent work tel: (0117) 954-5250 | waiting for compilations to finish.

1 0