Below are my ideas for two languages extensions which I think add a lot to the Haskell language without adding too much ambiguity. At least, I haven’t found any issues with the ideas so far, but I’m sure plenty of other people will be able to .
Let’s say I’ve got the Failure class, and I’d like to define a MonadFailure class- simply for convenience- which is a subclass of both Failure and Monad. Well, defining the class is easy:
class (Monad m, Failure m) => MonadFailure m
I believe that this should automatically make anything which is an instance of both Monad and Failure an instance of MonadFailure, since the definition of MonadFailure is completely empty. I look at class instances as needing to address two issues:
- Existence: is there some instance which makes sense?
- Uniqueness: of those instances which make sense, which one should I use?
Here, there is no room for ambiguity: there exists an instance which makes sense (eg, instance MonadFailure Maybe), and there is precisely one instance which makes sense. There is no alternative way to define this instance.
Therefore, I think that in this case we should not complain if we have two instances for the same data type, since we know that the instances will be identical. That would make this extension work very nicely with existing code. It also adds no new syntax.
What I didn’t say
I specifically do not think this extension should make automatic instances of classes which have default definitions for all its functions. The first example that comes to mind is Exception: even though both fromException and toException have default definitions, I think the user should still have to explicitly instanciate exception, even if a type is already an instance of Typeable and Show.
This extension is a bit more complicated. For motivation, let’s look at the interaction between Monad and Applicative. For most cases, a Monad can define an Applicative instance as such:
instance Functor MyMonad where fmap = liftM instance Applicative MyMonad where pure = return (<*>) = ap
Well, that’s irritating! Instead of just writing a five line Monad instance, I have to write five extra boilerplate lines.
As a separate issue, Applicative is not defined as a superclass of Monad, and therefore I cannot treat all Monads as Applicatives. But we can’t add that superclass requirement without breaking existing code.
So I say we allow the definition of Monad as such:
class Applicative m => Monad m where fail s :: s -> m a -- or we could just take this out... (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b -- the same return :: a -> m a -- also the same fmap = liftM -- a default definition for a superclass function pure = return (<*>) = ap
And suddenly all Monads are Applicative! Since every function in the Functor and Applicative classes is a given default definition in Monad, they can be automatically derived.
But what if you want to define a special version of fmap? Simple: do it like always! The definition in Monad is merely the default; if the compiler finds a separate instance for your data type, it uses that instead. This way, old code still works without a hitch.
The only downside I can see is that suddenly you’ll have instances of classes where before there were none. Not that having Applicative instances in and of itself is a downside, but there might be cases where it would define inappropriate instances (not that I can think of any off-hand). On the other hand, this would be mitigated slightly by the requirement of the type-class author to explicitly turn on this flag.
Let the beatings begin
Well, this is my first time suggesting any changes to Haskell, so I expect to be thoroughly scolded for my perposterous, heratical notions. Even if these suggestions are lacking, however, I hope we eventually get something which allows these kinds of features in Haskell.