Has anyone else tried implementing type-level integers using type families?
I tried using a couple of other type level arithmetic libraries (including type-level on Hackage) and they felt a bit clumsy to use. I started looking at type families and realized I could pretty much build an entire Scheme-like language based on them. In short, I've got addition, subtraction, & multiplication working after just a days worth of hacking. I'm going to post the darcs archive sometime, sooner if anyone's interested. I really like the type-families based approach to this, it's a lot easier to understand, and you can think about things functionally instead of relationally. (Switching back and forth between Prolog-ish thinking and Haskell gets old quick.) Plus you can do type arithmetic directly in place, instead of using type classes everywhere. One thing that I'd like to be able to do is lazy unification on type instances, so that things like data True data False type family Cond x y z type instance Cond True y z = y type instance Cond False y z = z will work if the non-taken branch can't be unified with anything. Is this planned? Is it even feasible? I'm pretty sure it would be possible to implement a Lambda like this, but I'm not seeing it yet. Any ideas? Pete _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
Peter Gavin wrote:
> Has anyone else tried implementing type-level integers using type families? > > I tried using a couple of other type level arithmetic libraries > (including type-level on Hackage) and they felt a bit clumsy to use. I > started looking at type families and realized I could pretty much build > an entire Scheme-like language based on them. > > In short, I've got addition, subtraction, & multiplication working after > just a days worth of hacking. I'm going to post the darcs archive > sometime, sooner if anyone's interested. > > I really like the type-families based approach to this, it's a lot > easier to understand, and you can think about things functionally > instead of relationally. (Switching back and forth between Prolog-ish > thinking and Haskell gets old quick.) Plus you can do type arithmetic > directly in place, instead of using type classes everywhere. nice, it's been tried before, etc. etc.. And of course it doesn't work with a released version of GHC, so maybe it's hoping too much that it would be on Hackage. What I was going to say was, see if there is one on hackage, otherwise there should be one there to be polished. But I guess searching haskell-cafe is your man :-) (your way to try to find any. Or the Haskell blogosphere too.) > One thing that I'd like to be able to do is lazy unification on type > instances, so that things like > > ... > > will work if the non-taken branch can't be unified with anything. Is > this planned? Is it even feasible? > > I'm pretty sure it would be possible to implement a Lambda like this, > but I'm not seeing it yet. Any ideas? Yeah -- that would be neat but generally tends to lead to undecidability (unless you're really careful making it a lot(?) less useful). That is, potential nontermination in the type inferencer/checker, not just in runtime. Then you'll want it to be well-defined when something is type-level-lazy, so you can reliably write your type-level algorithms. And *that* is bound to be rather difficult to define and to implement and maintain. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
In reply to this post by Peter Gavin
Peter Gavin:
> Has anyone else tried implementing type-level integers using type > families? > > I tried using a couple of other type level arithmetic libraries > (including type-level on Hackage) and they felt a bit clumsy to > use. I started looking at type families and realized I could pretty > much build an entire Scheme-like language based on them. > > In short, I've got addition, subtraction, & multiplication working > after just a days worth of hacking. I'm going to post the darcs > archive sometime, sooner if anyone's interested. > > I really like the type-families based approach to this, it's a lot > easier to understand, and you can think about things functionally > instead of relationally. (Switching back and forth between Prolog- > ish thinking and Haskell gets old quick.) Plus you can do type > arithmetic directly in place, instead of using type classes > everywhere. I am glad to hear that type families work for you. > One thing that I'd like to be able to do is lazy unification on type > instances, so that things like > > data True > data False > > type family Cond x y z > type instance Cond True y z = y > type instance Cond False y z = z > > will work if the non-taken branch can't be unified with anything. > Is this planned? Is it even feasible? I don't think i entirely understand the question. Do you mean that from an equality like Cond b Int Bool ~ Int you want the type checker to infer that (b ~ True)? This is generally not correct reasoning as type families are open; ie, subsequent modules might add data Bogus type instance Bogus y z = Int and now there are two solutions to (Cond b Int Bool ~ Int). Manuel _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
In reply to this post by Peter Gavin
Benedikt Huber wrote:
>> data True >> data False >> >> type family Cond x y z >> type instance Cond True y z = y >> type instance Cond False y z = z > > I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I also found that e.g. > > > type instance Mod x y = Cond (y :>: x) x (Mod (Sub x y) y) > > won't terminate, as > > > Mod D0 D1 ==> Cond True D0 (Mod (Sub D0 D1) D0) ==> <loop> Right, because it always tries to infer the (Mod (Sub x y) y) part no matter what the result of (y :>: x) is. > > rather than > > > Mod D0 D1 ==> Cond True D0 ? ==> D0 > > For Mod, I used the following (usual) encoding: > > > type family Mod' x y x_gt_y > > type instance Mod' x y False = x > > type instance Mod' x y True = Mod' (Sub x y) y ((Sub x y) :>=: y) > > type family Mod x y > > type instance Mod x y = Mod' x y (x :>=: y) > Yes, it's possible to terminate a loop by matching the type argument directly. > 1) One cannot define type equality (unless total type families become > available), i.e. use the overlapping instances trick: >> instance Eq e e True >> instance Eq e e' False I didn't want to mix type classes and families in my implementation. All the predicates are implemented like so: > type family Eq x y > type instance Eq D0 D0 = True > type instance Eq D1 D1 = True ... > type instance Eq (xh :* xl) (yh :* yl) = And (Eq xl yl) (Eq xh yh) then I've added a single type-class > class Require b > instance Require True so you can do stuff like > f :: (Require (Eq (x :+: y) z)) => x -> y -> z or whatever. I haven't yet tested it (but I think it should work) :) Pete > > Consequently, all type-level functions which depend on type equality > (see HList) need to be encoded using type classes. > > 2) One cannot use superclass contexts to derive instances e.g. to define >> instance Succ (s,s') => Pred (s',s) > > In constrast, when using MPTC + FD, one can establish more than one TL > function in one definition > > > class Succ x x' | x -> x', x' -> x > > 3) Not sure if this is a problem in general, but I think you cannot > restrict the set of type family instances easily. > > E.g., if you have an instance > > > type instance Mod10 (x :* D0) = D0 > > then you also have > > > Mod10 (FooBar :* D0) ~ D0 > > What would be nice is something like > > > type instance (IsPos x) => Mod10 (x :* D0) = D0 > > though > > > type family AssertThen b x > > type instance AssertThen True x = x > > type instance Mod10 (x :* D0) = AssertThen (IsPos x) D0 > > seems to work as well. > > 4) Not really a limitation, but if you want to use instance methods of > Nat or Bool (e.g. toBool) on the callee site, you have to provide > context that the type level functions are closed w.r.t. to the type class: > >> test_1a :: forall a b b1 b2 b3. >> (b1 ~ And a b, >> b2 ~ Not (Or a b), >> b3 ~ Or b1 b2, >> Bool b3) => a -> b -> Prelude.Bool >> test_1a a b = toBool (undefined :: b3) > > Actually, I think the 'a ~ b' syntax is very nice. > > I'm really looking forward to type families. > > best regards, > > benedikt _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
In reply to this post by Peter Gavin
Replying to myself...
I put a copy of the darcs repo at <http://code.haskell.org/~pgavin/tfp>, if anyone is interested. Pete Peter Gavin wrote: > Has anyone else tried implementing type-level integers using type families? > > I tried using a couple of other type level arithmetic libraries > (including type-level on Hackage) and they felt a bit clumsy to use. I > started looking at type families and realized I could pretty much build > an entire Scheme-like language based on them. > > In short, I've got addition, subtraction, & multiplication working after > just a days worth of hacking. I'm going to post the darcs archive > sometime, sooner if anyone's interested. > > I really like the type-families based approach to this, it's a lot > easier to understand, and you can think about things functionally > instead of relationally. (Switching back and forth between Prolog-ish > thinking and Haskell gets old quick.) Plus you can do type arithmetic > directly in place, instead of using type classes everywhere. > > One thing that I'd like to be able to do is lazy unification on type > instances, so that things like > > data True > data False > > type family Cond x y z > type instance Cond True y z = y > type instance Cond False y z = z > > will work if the non-taken branch can't be unified with anything. Is > this planned? Is it even feasible? > > I'm pretty sure it would be possible to implement a Lambda like this, > but I'm not seeing it yet. Any ideas? > > Pete _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
In reply to this post by Peter Gavin
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Peter Gavin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Has anyone else tried implementing type-level integers using type families? When I started to work on thetype-level and parameterized data packages, I considered using type-families and GADTs, but I found quite a few problems which have been nicely summarized by Benedikt in this thread. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |