Try with -XExtendedDefaulingRules.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Mark Lentczner
I'm looking for a good way to handle a library interface that accepts both strings and numbers in particular argument positions:
Start with the following definitions. I've defined ResourceTree as a class here since the details don't matter.
data Segment = Key String | Index Int deriving (Eq, Show)
type Path = [Segment]
class ResourceTree a where lookupPath :: Path -> a -> Maybe String
What I'm after is to make the following code, representative of intended client usage to work:
examples :: (ResourceTree a) => a -> [Maybe String] examples r = [ r `at` "status", r `at` 7, r `at` "part" ./ "sku", r `at` "items" ./ 2, r `at` 7 ./ "name", r `at` 7 ./ 9 ]
The first way I thought to do this was with type classes:
class Segmentable a where { toSegment :: a -> Segment } instance Segmentable Segment where { toSegment = id } instance Segmentable String where { toSegment = Key } instance Segmentable Int where { toSegment = Index }
class Pathable a where { toPath :: a -> Path } instance Pathable Path where { toPath = id } instance Pathable String where { toPath s = [ Key s ] } instance Pathable Int where { toPath i = [ Index i ] }
(./) :: (Segmentable a, Pathable b) => a -> b -> Path a ./ b = toSegment a : toPath b infixr 4 ./
at :: (ResourceTree a, Pathable b) => a -> b -> Maybe String a `at` b = lookupPath (toPath b) a infix 2 `at`
This works great for all uses in the client code where the type of the numeric arguments are known or otherwise forced to be Int. However, when used with numeric constants (as in the function example above), it fails due to the way that numeric constants are defined in Haskell. For example, the constant 9 in example results in this error:
Ambiguous type variable `t4' in the constraints: `Pathable t4' arising from a use of `./' at Test.hs:48:15-20 `Num t4' arising from the literal `9' at Test.hs:48:20 Probable fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
I suppose that even though there is only one type that is both an instance of Num and of Pathable (Int), that can't be deduced with certainty.
In the client code, one could fix this by typing the constants thus:
r `at` (7::Int) ./ (9::Int)
But to me that makes a hash out of the concise syntax I was trying to achieve.
Also, this code requires both FlexibleInstances and TypeSynonymInstances pragmas (though the later requirement could be worked around.), though I'm lead to understand that those are common enough. I think also that, these are only needed in the library, not the client code.
The other way I thought to do this is by making Path and Segment instances of Num and IsString:
instance Num Segment where { fromInteger = Index . fromInteger } instance IsString Segment where { fromString = Key . fromString } instance Num Path where { fromInteger i = [ Index $ fromInteger i ] } instance IsString Path where { fromString s = [ Key $ fromString s ] }
(./) :: Segment -> Path -> Path a ./ b = a : b infixr 4 ./
at :: (ResourceTree a) => a -> Path -> Maybe String a `at` b = lookupPath b a infix 2 `at`
This works but has two downsides: 1) Segment and Path are poor instances of Num, eliciting errors for missing methods and resulting in run-time errors should any client code accidentally use them as such. 2) It requires the OverloadedStrings pragma in every client module.
Any comments on these two approaches would be appreciated, How to improve them? Which is the lesser of two evils?
On the other hand, I realize that many may object that intended interface isn't very Haskell like. The data object I need to represent (ResourceTree) comes from external input and really does have the strange "paths of strings or integers" construction, I can't change that. And it is expected that much client code will use constant paths to access and manipulate various parts of such objects, hence the desire for a concise operator set that works with constants. Given that there are actually several operations on ResourceTree involving paths (where the operation requires the whole Path as a single value), any thoughts on a more Haskell like construction?
Thanks, - MtnViewMark
Mark Lentczner http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/ mark@glyphic.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe