---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gábor Lehel Date: 2010/8/14 Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] ATs vs FDs To: Andrew Coppin You're missing equality constraints for classes. In other words: class (a ~ Smaller (Bigger a), a ~ Bigger (Smaller a)) => Vector a where type Bigger a; type Smaller a FDs and TFs are equivalent in theory, however their implementation in GHC has shortcomings on (I believe) both sides. In this case, GHC unfortunately doesn't yet support equality constraints in class contexts, which you would need to do some of the things FDs can do. I believe there are workarounds for this in some cases, including one which uses plain type classes to encode not-quite-equality, and one where you just add the constraints to every method of the class instead, but I don't know the details. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:

As I understand it, ATs were invented because FDs are "evil" and must never be used ever for any purpose. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to use ATs to do the same things that FDs can do.

You can use ATs to write type functions, which take one type and return another type. This allows you to express type relationships in a very elegant way. However, what it does /not/ seem to allow you to do is express one-to-one relationships.

For example, I'd like to be able to say that the next vector up from a Vector3 is a Vector4, and the next vector down is a Vector2. And I can say that. What I can't say is that the *only* next vector up is a Vector4. And thus, all my code is littered with ambiguous type warnings because although /currently/ there's only one class instance, somebody could come along some day and write another one.

What am I missing?

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively. -- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.