Mind this program:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import Prelude hiding (sum)
type List h = forall t . (h -> t -> t) -> t -> t
sum_ :: (Num a) => List a -> a
sum_ = \ list -> list (+) 0
toList :: [a] -> List a
toList = \ list cons nil -> foldr cons nil list
sum :: (Num a) => [a] -> a
-- sum = sum_ . toList -- does not work
sum = \ a -> sum_ (toList a) -- works
main = print (sum [1,2,3])
Both definitions of sum are identical up to equational reasoning. Yet, compiling the second definition of works, but the first one doesn't, with this error:
tmpdel.hs:17:14:
Couldn't match type ‘(a -> t0 -> t0) -> t0 -> t0’
with ‘forall t. (a -> t -> t) -> t -> t’
Expected type: [a] -> List a
Actual type: [a] -> (a -> t0 -> t0) -> t0 -> t0
Relevant bindings include sum :: [a] -> a (bound at tmpdel.hs:17:1)
In the second argument of ‘(.)’, namely ‘toList’
In the expression: sum_ . toList
It seems that RankNTypes
breaks equational reasoning. Is there any way to have church-encoded lists in Haskell without breaking it??
I have the impression that ghc percolates all for-alls as left as possible:
forall a t. [a] -> (a -> t -> t) -> t -> t)
and
forall a. [a] -> forall t . (h -> t -> t) -> t -> t
can be used interchangeably as witnessed by:
toList' :: forall a t. [a] -> (a -> t -> t) -> t -> t
toList' = toList
toList :: [a] -> List a
toList = toList'
Which could explain why sum
's type cannot be checked. You can avoid this sort of issues by packaging your polymorphic definition in a newtype
wrapper to avoid such hoisting (that paragraph does not appear in newer versions of the doc hence my using the conditional earlier).
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import Prelude hiding (sum)
newtype List h = List { runList :: forall t . (h -> t -> t) -> t -> t }
sum_ :: (Num a) => List a -> a
sum_ xs = runList xs (+) 0
toList :: [a] -> List a
toList xs = List $ \ c n -> foldr c n xs
sum :: (Num a) => [a] -> a
sum = sum_ . toList
main = print (sum [1,2,3])