|Version 10 (modified by ross@…, 9 years ago) (diff)|
Especially with MultiParamTypeClasses, we would like to write instances like
instance MArray (STArray s) e (ST s)
However without some restrictions constraint checking is undecidable.
This page lists alternative proposals for liberalizing the form of instances while retaining sufficient restrictions to guarantee termination. Such restrictions are necessarily conservative: there will always be programs that are clearly safe but still rejected. Restrictions on the form of instances also restrict the forms of datatype declarations that can use deriving clause (see Context reduction errors in the Haskell 98 Report).
Note that if FunctionalDependencies are present, additional restrictions are required.
See UndecidableInstances for an alternative strategy using dynamic constraints on context reduction.
If one can write instances like
instance C [Bool] where ... instance C [Char] where ...
then assertions like C [a] can be neither reduced nor rejected, so FlexibleContexts are also needed.
- Instance declarations in the Haskell 98 Report
- Type classes: exploring the design space by Simon Peyton Jones, Mark Jones and Erik Meijer, Haskell Workshop 1997.
- Undecidable instances in the GHC 6.4 User's Guide.
- Relaxed rules for instance declarations in the GHC 6.5 User's Guide.
- add FlexibleInstances
Local termination conditions
The idea here is to impose restrictions on the form of each instance in isolation, such that context reduction will be guaranteed to terminate.
- an instance head must have the form C (T u1 ... uk), where T is a type constructor defined by a data or newtype declaration (see TypeSynonymInstances) and the ui are distinct type variables, and
- each assertion in the context must have the form C' v, where v is one of the ui.
GHC 6.4 and earlier
- at least one of the type arguments of the instance head must be a non-variable type, and
- each assertion in the context must have the form C v1 ... vn, where the vi are distinct type variables.
The distinctness requirement prohibits non-terminating instances like
instance C b b => C (Maybe a) b
(e.g. C (Maybe Int) (Maybe Int) reduces to itself.)
Each assertion in the context must satisfy
- no variable has more occurrences in the assertion than in the head, and
- the assertion has fewer constructors and variables (taken together and counting repetitions) than the head.
(These conditions ensure that under any ground substitution, the assertion contains fewer constructors than the head.)
This rule allows instances accepted by the previous rule and more, including
instance C a instance Show (s a) => Show (Sized s a) instance (C1 a, C2 b) => C a b instance C1 Int a => C2 Bool [a] instance C1 Int a => C2 [a] b instance C a a => C [a] [a]
It also allows derived instances like
instance Show (s a) => Show (Sized s a) deriving (Show)
because the derived instance (above) has the required form.
Non-local termination conditions
No local criterion can accept a definition like
instance (C1 a, C2 a, C3 a) => C a
because termination depends on other instances in the program. However this is clearly safe if none of the instances for C1, C2 or C3 contain a direct or indirect constraint using C.
The proposal is that one of the above local restrictions be used, but only on cycles of instances.
This is more complex than a local criterion: the instance the compiler complains about might not be the one the programmer just added (creating a cycle), or even in the same module.