Opened 5 months ago
Last modified 6 weeks ago
#15322 new bug
`KnownNat` does not imply `Typeable` any more when used with plugin
Reported by: | chshersh | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 8.8.1 |
Component: | Compiler | Version: | 8.4.3 |
Keywords: | typeable, knownnat, TypeCheckerPlugins | Cc: | diatchki, dotwani@…, adamgundry |
Operating System: | Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple |
Type of failure: | GHC rejects valid program | Test Case: | |
Blocked By: | Blocking: | ||
Related Tickets: | #10348 | Differential Rev(s): | |
Wiki Page: |
Description
I have the following Haskell code which uses ghc-typelits-knownnat-0.5
package as a plugin:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-} {-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-} {-# OPTIONS_GHC -fplugin GHC.TypeLits.KnownNat.Solver #-} module Nats where import Data.Proxy (Proxy (..)) import Data.Typeable (Typeable) import GHC.TypeLits (KnownNat, type (+)) f :: forall n . (Typeable n, KnownNat n) => Proxy n -> () f _ = () f _ = f (Proxy :: Proxy (n + 1))
When I try to compile this code I observe the following error message:
• Could not deduce (Typeable (n + 1)) arising from a use of ‘f’ from the context: (Typeable n, KnownNat n) bound by the type signature for: f :: forall (n :: ghc-prim-0.5.2.0:GHC.Types.Nat). (Typeable n, KnownNat n) => Proxy n -> () at src/Nats.hs:13:1-57 • In the expression: f (Proxy :: Proxy (n + 1)) In an equation for ‘f’: f _ = f (Proxy :: Proxy (n + 1)) | 15 | f _ = f (Proxy :: Proxy (n + 1)) | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This code works for both GHC-8.2.2 and GHC-8.0.2. I found similar ticket with exactly this problem but looks like this is broken again: #10348 (bug).
Originally reported at Github for ghc-typelits-knownnat
package:
ghc-typelits-knownnat
package correctly infers KnownNat (n + 1)
constraint so GHC should be able to infer Typeable (n + 1)
.
Change History (20)
comment:1 Changed 5 months ago by
Cc: | diatchki added |
---|
comment:2 Changed 5 months ago by
simonpj, thanks a lot for your response. This workaround works perfectly for me!
Regarding simpler example: I tried to come up with example which doesn't involve plugin. But didn't manage to do it. I don't know how to launch my example with single ghc
command. What I did: I created very simple project with cabal init
, added ghc-typelits-knownnat == 0.5
to build-depends
in .cabal
file and built given source code snippet.
comment:3 Changed 5 months ago by
My thinking was as follows: we are treating Nat
and Symbol
as just infinite families of type constructors. This makes is tricky to define class instances involving them, as we essentially need to write infinitely many instances. For example:
instance MyClass (T 0) where ... instance MyClass (T 1) where ... ...etc...
To avoid having to provide some special mechanism for declaring such instances, we just define one special class that captures this pattern, and the instances are "magically" provided by GHC. For Nat
it is called KnownNat
:
instance KnownNat 0 where ... instance KnownNat 1 where ... ... etc ..
This makes it possible to define "infinite" instances for any class like this:
instance KnownNat n => MyClass (T n) where ...
We do the exact same thing for Typeable
:
instance KnownNat n => Typeable (n :: Nat) where ...
The KnownNat
constraint provides the run-time representation of the number, which is used to build the run-time representation of the type.
comment:4 Changed 5 months ago by
This makes it possible to define "infinite" instances for any class like this:
Well, how does the KnownNat
constraint help in defining the instance for MyClass (T n)
? Presumably, because KnownNat
lets you use natSign
:
class KnownNat (n :: Nat) where natSing :: SNat n
If that's what you need for instance MyClass (T n)
, then that makes perfect sense.
But it makes no such sense for Typeable
. How does having KnownNat n
available help you write the Typeable
instance?
I think we just need built-in behaviour for Typeable (n :: Nat)
, without any reference to KnownNat
, don't we? There is some such built-in behaviour already, but I don't understand what it is, and it's clearly dodgy as this ticket shows.
Would you like to elaborate your description of what happens now?
comment:5 Changed 5 months ago by
We are using the same system for Typeable
. Have a look in Data.Typeable.Internal
(in base
): the functions typeNatTypeRep
and typeSymbolTypeRep
make the run-time representations used by the corresponding Typeable
instances.
The ds_ev_typeable
function in deSugar/DsBinds
just uses these functions when it needs to make evidence for Typeable
.
comment:6 Changed 5 months ago by
OK, now I understand. I'll add this comment to TcInteract
:
Note [Typeable for Nat and Symbol] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We have special Typeable instances for Nat and Symbol. Roughly we have this instance, implemented here by doTyLit: instance KnownNat n => Typeable (n :: Nat) where typeRep = tyepNatTypeRep @n where Data.Typeable.Internals.typeNatTypeRep :: KnownNat a => TypeRep a Ultimately typeNatTypeRep uses 'natSing' from KnownNat to get a runtime value 'n'; it turns it into a string with 'show' and uses that to whiz up a TypeRep TyCon for 'n', with mkTypeLitTyCon. See #10348. Because of this rule it's inadvisable (see #15322) to have a constraint f :: (Typeable (n :: Nat)) => blah in a function signature; it gives rise to overlap problems just as if you'd written f :: Eq [a] => blah
Note the "inadvisable" part, which is what this ticket is about. It just wasn't at all clear to me, and hence perhaps not to others.
comment:7 Changed 5 months ago by
This seems unfortunate to me. I wonder if it would be better to have
getNat :: TypeRep (n :: Nat) -> Natural
and then dispense with KnownNat
. If I were guessing which were primitive between KnownNat
and Typeable
, I would guess Typeable
.
comment:8 Changed 5 months ago by
Dispensing with KnownNat
would be a worthwhile simplification.
How would we implement getNat
? It might not be hard: just add an extra data constructor to TyCon
perhaps. But someone would have to think about it.
comment:9 Changed 5 months ago by
Well, the evidence for KnownNat
is just a simple integer, while the corresponding TypeRep
is a much more heavy-weight structure, containing hashes, strings, etc. Since these are created on demand for type-literals, we would be doing additional allocation and hashing at run-time.
There are many cases where KnowNat
is useful without the additional functionality provided by Typeable
, so I think that the current system makes sense.
comment:10 Changed 5 months ago by
Well, the evidence for KnownNat is just a simple integer, while the corresponding TypeRep is a much more heavy-weight structure
That's a fair point.
comment:13 Changed 5 months ago by
My patch makes the reporting of unnecessary constraints more consistent -- in particular, accounting for built-in constraints.
The original program still fails in the same way, for the reason explained in comment:1.
What is the "real" fix? Well, despite comment:1 we know that Typeable (n+1)
is never going to simplify to Typeable n
(at least, not without using instances), because we know that n+1 /= n
. But doesn't know that.
The plug-in, I imagine, allows GHC to solve KnownNat (n+1)
from KnownNat n
. We want the plugin also to be able to say that n
is apart from n+1
; that is, they can never be equal. This is a property of (+)
.
So I think that perhaps domain-specific apartness should be part of what a typechecker plugin can specify. I'll leave this ticket open to discuss that idea.
comment:14 Changed 5 months ago by
Cc: | dotwani@… added |
---|
I really like the idea of domain-specific apartness. It's the perfect complement to the way that plugins can expand the equality relation, as my student Divesh (now in cc) and I have been exploring...
comment:15 Changed 4 months ago by
A bit of community-feedback: I have used type-nats a few times and every time I used them, I have been bitten by GHC not recognizing apartness between nats. I think the ability for a plugin to provide the functionality would make them way more useful!
comment:16 Changed 4 months ago by
I have used type-nats a few times and every time I used them, I have been bitten by GHC not recognizing apartness between nats
Interesting. Another possibility would be to build into GHC more knowledge about KnownNat
.
But making it possible for plugins to specify apartness would also be good.
comment:17 Changed 4 months ago by
I don't think the apartness issue is specific to KnownNat
or nats for that matter, it really is more about type functions. From what I've seen, people tend to notice the issue more when working with nats for two reasons (1) they are used to 0
and succ
being constructors, and so one can define things inductively using them; (2) when using type nats, one simply uses type functions a lot more than in ordinary code.
I also think that it would be quite cool to work out a system for matching on type functions (at least in some special cases), but I'd rather not do it through plugins.
comment:18 Changed 4 months ago by
You are right, the issue mostly stems from the fact (I think? At least that is the most common problem where it all breaks down) that I can't convince the typechecker that things defined by induction (through 0 and (n+1)) are valid and hold for every n.
I have no idea what the best technical solution would be. I am just a user. Here's a related issue: https://github.com/clash-lang/ghc-typelits-natnormalise/issues/13, which is very similar to the usual pains when I use type-level nats.
comment:20 Changed 6 weeks ago by
Cc: | adamgundry added |
---|---|
Keywords: | TypeCheckerPlugins added |
#15322
Does this need the plugin to demonstrate the bug? It complicate reproduction, and indeed I'm not sure how to set up the plugin.
I do know a bit about what's going on. I think this bug is a consequence of this patch
The issue here is this. We have
Can we use
TcInteract.doTyLit
to simplify the[W]
goal, by instead generating[W] KnownNat (n+1)
? GHC does not do so, because suppose we had instead got:where
type family F (x::Nat) :: Nat
. Now we don't want to do thedoTyLit
thing because then we'd be stuck... we'd have[W] KnownNat (F [x])
with no way to solve it.Instead, by deferring that choice, GHC is hoping that later we'll reduce
F [x] --> x
and bingo we'd have[W] Typeable x
which we can solve from the Given. Background info: this "deferring" business is implmented by this code inTcInteract
:Returning to the example, I'm pretty suspicous of the whole
doTyLit
thing (introduced by Iavor in Trac #10348). It seems to say that really the only way to solveTypeable (ty :: Nat)
is by provingKnonwNat ty
, which seems to me like replacing a simple goal with a complicated one.One possible workaround for you may be to remove the
Typeable n
constraint since it is (I think) mysteriously implied byTypeable
(c.f. Trac #10348). I say "mysteriously" becauseTypeable
is not a superclass ofKonwnNat
.Iavor, I'm a bit lost here.