Can I have a type-safe union (As in C's union) in Haskell? This is the best I tried, here Variant, named after C++'s std::variant:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
module Emulation.CPlusPlus.Variant (
Variant, singleton
) where
import Data.Type.Bool
import Data.Type.Equality
import Type.Reflection
data Variant :: [*] -> * where
Singleton :: a -> Variant (a ': as)
Arbitrary :: Variant as -> Variant (a ': as)
singleton :: (Not (bs == '[]) || a == b) ~ 'True => forall a b. a -> Variant (b ': bs)
singleton x = case eqTypeRep (typeRep :: TypeRep a) (typeRep :: TypeRep b) of
Nothing -> Arbitrary (singleton x)
Just HRefl -> Singleton x
This produces error message as follows:
Prelude> :load Variant.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Emulation.CPlusPlus.Variant ( Variant.hs, interpreted )
Variant.hs:19:14: error:
• Could not deduce: (Not (bs == '[]) || (a0 == b0)) ~ 'True
from the context: (Not (bs == '[]) || (a == b)) ~ 'True
bound by the type signature for:
singleton :: forall (bs :: [*]) a b.
((Not (bs == '[]) || (a == b)) ~ 'True) =>
forall a1 b1. a1 -> Variant (b1 : bs)
at Variant.hs:19:14-85
The type variables ‘a0’, ‘b0’ are ambiguous
• In the ambiguity check for ‘singleton’
To defer the ambiguity check to use sites, enable AllowAmbiguousTypes
In the type signature:
singleton :: (Not (bs == '[]) || a == b) ~ True =>
forall a b. a -> Variant (b : bs)
|
19 | singleton :: (Not (bs == '[]) || a == b) ~ True => forall a b. a -> Variant (b ': bs)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Failed, no modules loaded.
I don't get how such ambiguity emerges.
The conventional names for the constructors are Inl and Inr:
import Data.Kind
data Sum :: [Type] -> Type where
Inl :: a -> Sum (a : as) -- INject Left
Inr :: !(Sum as) -> Sum (a : as) -- INject Right
The extra strictness in Inr is optional. Consider Either a b. This type has the values undefined, Left undefined, and Right undefined, along with all the other ones. Consider your Variant [a, b]. This has undefined, Singleton undefined, Variant undefined, and Variant (Singleton undefined). There is one extra partially-undefined value that does not arise with Either. Inr's strictness squashes Inr undefined and undefined together. This means you cannot have a value with only a "partially known" variant. All strictness annotations in the following are for "correctness." They squash out bottoms in places where you probably don't want bottoms.
Now, the signature of singleton, as pointed out by @rampion, has a use-before-definition error. It "ought" to be:
singleton :: forall a b.
(Not (bs == '[]) || a == b) ~ True =>
a -> Variant (b ': bs)
But that isn't quite right. If a ~ b, great, this works. If not, there is no way for the compiler to ensure that a is in bs, because you haven't constrained for that. This new signature still fails. For the most power, especially for future definitions, you'll want something like
-- Elem x xs has the structure of a Nat, but doubles as a proof that x is in xs
-- or: Elem x xs is the type of numbers n such that the nth element of xs is x
data Elem (x :: k) (xs :: [k]) where
Here :: Elem x (x : xs)
There :: !(Elem x xs) -> Elem x (y : xs) -- strictness optional
-- boilerplate; use singletons or similar to dodge this mechanical tedium
-- EDIT: singletons doesn't support GADTs just yet, so this must be handwritten
-- See https://github.com/goldfirere/singletons/issues/150
data SElem x xs (e :: Elem x xs) where
SHere :: SElem x (x : xs) Here
SThere :: SElem x xs e -> SElem x (y : xs) (There e)
class KElem x xs (e :: Elem x xs) | e -> x xs where kElem :: SElem x xs e
instance KElem x (x : xs) Here where kElem = SHere
instance KElem x xs e => KElem x (y : xs) (There e) where kElem = SThere kElem
demoteElem :: SElem x xs e -> Elem x xs
demoteElem SHere = Here
demoteElem (SThere e) = There (demoteElem e)
-- inj puts a value into a Sum at the given index
inj :: Elem t ts -> t -> Sum ts
inj Here x = Inl x
inj (There e) x = Inr $ inj e x
-- try to find the first index where x occurs in xs
type family FirstIndexOf (x :: k) (xs :: [k]) :: Elem x xs where
FirstIndexOf x (x:xs) = Here
FirstIndexOf x (y:xs) = There (FirstIndexOf x xs)
-- INJect First
-- calculate the target index as a type
-- require it as an implicit value
-- defer to inj
injF :: forall as a.
KElem a as (FirstIndexOf a as) =>
a -> Sum as
injF = inj (demoteElem $ kElem @a @as @(FirstIndexOf a as))
-- or injF = inj (kElem :: SElem a as (FirstIndexOf a as))
You can also just stick an Elem inside Sum:
data Sum :: [Type] -> Type where
Sum :: !(Elem t ts) -> t -> Sum ts -- strictness optional
You may recover Inl and Inr as pattern synonyms
pattern Inl :: forall ts. () =>
forall t ts'. (ts ~ (t : ts')) =>
t -> Sum ts
pattern Inl x = Sum Here x
data Inr' ts = forall t ts'. (ts ~ (t : ts')) => Inr' (Sum ts')
_Inr :: Sum ts -> Maybe (Inr' ts)
_Inr (Sum Here _) = Nothing
_Inr (Sum (There tag) x) = Just $ Inr' $ Sum tag x
pattern Inr :: forall ts. () =>
forall t ts'. (ts ~ (t : ts')) =>
Sum ts' -> Sum ts
pattern Inr x <- (_Inr -> Just (Inr' x))
where Inr (Sum tag x) = Sum (There tag) x
If you try some more, you can use huge amounts of unsafeCoerce Refl (to create "bogus" type equalities) to create an API like this:
import Numeric.Natural
-- ...
type role SElem nominal nominal nominal
-- SElem is a GMP integer
-- Elem is a nice GADT
-- Elem gives a nice experience at the type level
-- this allows functions like FirstIndexOf
-- SElem avoids using unary numbers at the value level
newtype SElem x xs e = SElem Natural
pattern SHere :: forall t ts e. () =>
forall ts'. (ts ~ (t:ts'), e ~ (Here :: Elem t (t:ts'))) =>
SElem t ts e
pattern SThere :: forall t ts e. () =>
forall t' ts' e'. (ts ~ (t':ts'), e ~ (There e' :: Elem t (t':ts'))) =>
SElem t ts' e' ->
SElem t ts e
-- implementations are evil and kinda long
-- you'll probably need this:
-- type family Stuck (k :: Type) :: k where {- no equations -}
-- pattern synonyms are incredibly restrictive, so they aren't very straightforward
-- currently GHC does not allow INLINEs on pattern synonyms, so this won't
-- compile down to simple integer expressions just yet, either :(
And then write
data Sum :: [Type] -> Type where
Sum :: forall t ts (e :: Elem t ts). !(SElem t ts e) -> t -> Sum ts
which is close to a struct of an integer tag and a union, except said tag is a bit oversized.