Haskell record extension?
I'm learning Haskell. I was surprised that the following example did not compile: data Vector2 = Vector2 { x :: Float, y :: Float } data Vector3 = Vector3 { x :: Float, y :: Float, z :: Float } error: "Multiple declarations of `Main.x'" This seems to be a known issue and if I understand it correctly it has to do with the fact that Haskell does not support function general overloading ala C++. One either has to use type classes, or put each record in a separate module and fiddle with the qualified namespaces. I read multiple papers with proposals to fix this, but does GHC implement any of these? Thanks, Peter
bf3@telenet.be wrote:
I'm learning Haskell.
I was surprised that the following example did not compile:
data Vector2 = Vector2 { x :: Float, y :: Float } data Vector3 = Vector3 { x :: Float, y :: Float, z :: Float }
error: "Multiple declarations of `Main.x'"
This seems to be a known issue and if I understand it correctly it has to do with the fact that Haskell does not support function general overloading ala C++. One either has to use type classes, or put each record in a separate module and fiddle with the qualified namespaces.
I read multiple papers with proposals to fix this, but does GHC implement any of these?
AFAIK, GHC doesn't implement any fix for this. (I've been wrong before tho...) One easy workaround is to simply do data Vector2 = Vector2 { x2, y2 :: Float } data Vector3 = Vector3 { x3, y3, z3 :: Float} Another (which is usually a bad idea) is data Vector = Vector2 { x, y :: Float} | Vector3 { x, y, z :: Float} Usually you'll want to be able to seperate Vector2 functions from Vector3 functions, which the above won't allow you to do. And the other possibility is to play with type classes - something like class V1 v where x :: v -> Float instance V1 Vector2 where x (Vector2 f0 f1) = f0 and so on. And the final possibility is multiple modules and play with namespaces that way - but that's probably overkill.
bf3@telenet.be wrote:
I'm learning Haskell. I was surprised that the following example did not compile:
data Vector2 = Vector2 { x :: Float, y :: Float } data Vector3 = Vector3 { x :: Float, y :: Float, z :: Float }
error: "Multiple declarations of `Main.x'"
AFAIK, GHC doesn't implement any fix for this. (I've been wrong before tho...) This is a feature, not a bug. Haskell in general does not let you give two functions the same name (which is what you want to do). This is
Andrew Coppin wrote: true of all functions, not just the ones implicitly defined here. Your "Vector2" type is pure syntactic sugar for: data Vector2 = Vector2 Float Float x, y :: Vector2 -> Float x (Vector2 v _) = v y (Vector2 _ v) = v So now you also want x (Vector3 v _ _) = v etc etc. And no, you can't do that because "x" on its own might refer to either version, and its not clear which one you want. Paul.
Paul Johnson writes:
This is a feature, not a bug. Haskell in general does not let you give two functions the same name (which is what you want to do).
Record namespacing would still be nice to have, so perhaps call it a "limitation" rather than a bug, but it's not really a "feature". -David House, dmhouse@gmail.com
bf3@telenet.be wrote:
I'm learning Haskell. I was surprised that the following example did not compile:
data Vector2 = Vector2 { x :: Float, y :: Float } data Vector3 = Vector3 { x :: Float, y :: Float, z :: Float }
error: "Multiple declarations of `Main.x'"
AFAIK, GHC doesn't implement any fix for this. (I've been wrong before tho...) This is a feature, not a bug. Haskell in general does not let you give two functions the same name (which is what you want to do). This is
Thanks. Yes I read this is syntactic sugar, and I actually like that approach; it automatically "encapsulates" the data fileds by functions, which from an OO programmers point of view, is a good thing. I'm doing my best to get rid of that OO view though, which is not easy after 15 years of OO and 10 years of imperative programming ;-) However, I never understood why Haskell doesn't permit the same name for a function acting on different types, even without using type classes. Must be some deeper reason for it (currying?) Now the type class approach is interesting; it's like saying "any type that has an XXX field"... Lot's of typing, but IMHO it's worth it because it abstracts the concept of a field. I read some papers that some extensions got proposed to treat "fields" as first class values, so one could just do "get X (Vector2 1 2)". Did something like that make it into GHC? So the example becomes: module Main where -- "Vector" is a rather stupid example, because Haskell has tuples data Vector2 = Vector2 Float Float data Vector3 = Vector3 Float Float Float class HasX v where getX :: v -> Float setX :: v -> Float -> v class HasY v where getY :: v -> Float setY :: v -> Float -> v class HasZ v where getZ :: v -> Float setZ :: v -> Float -> v instance HasX Vector2 where getX (Vector2 x y) = x setX (Vector2 x y) value = Vector2 value y instance HasY Vector2 where getY (Vector2 x y) = y setY (Vector2 x y) value = Vector2 x value instance HasX Vector3 where getX (Vector3 x y z) = x setX (Vector3 x y z) value = Vector3 value y z instance HasY Vector3 where getY (Vector3 x y z) = y setY (Vector3 x y z) value = Vector3 x value z instance HasZ Vector3 where getZ (Vector3 x y z) = z setZ (Vector3 x y z) value = Vector3 x y value test v x = getY (setX v x) main = print $ test (Vector2 1 2) 3 -----Original Message----- From: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:51 AM To: Andrew Coppin Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell record extension? Andrew Coppin wrote: true of all functions, not just the ones implicitly defined here. Your "Vector2" type is pure syntactic sugar for: data Vector2 = Vector2 Float Float x, y :: Vector2 -> Float x (Vector2 v _) = v y (Vector2 _ v) = v So now you also want x (Vector3 v _ _) = v etc etc. And no, you can't do that because "x" on its own might refer to either version, and its not clear which one you want. Paul. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hello bf3, Saturday, June 16, 2007, 3:24:06 PM, you wrote:
However, I never understood why Haskell doesn't permit the same name for a function acting on different types, even without using type classes. Must be some deeper reason for it (currying?)
i guess because it makes type inference problematic. imagine 10 overloaded functions used together: func = a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j it will create 2^10 variants to check and make error messages very verbose (or non-informative). with type classes, you give common name to all the type variants you want to overload. at least, this simplifies error messages :) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
Hello bf3, Saturday, June 16, 2007, 1:24:58 AM, you wrote:
I read multiple papers with proposals to fix this, but does GHC implement any of these?
no, but hugs implements one of these proposals: see "7.2 Extensible records: Trex" in http://cvs.haskell.org/Hugs/pages/hugsman/exts.html (hugs manual contains more information, see "comprehensive manual" on http://cvs.haskell.org/Hugs/pages/documentation.htm ) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
participants (5)
-
Andrew Coppin -
bf3＠telenet.be -
Bulat Ziganshin -
David House -
Paul Johnson