The quantified constraint trick

Posted on September 21, 2022

My favorite Haskell trick is how to use quantified constraints with type families. Kudos to Iceland_jack for coming up with it.

Quantified constraints and type families

QuantifiedConstraints is an extension from GHC 8.6 that lets us use forall in constraints.

It lets us express constraints for instances of higher-kinded types like Fix:

newtype Fix f = Fix (f (Fix f))

deriving instance (forall a. Eq a => Eq (f a)) => Eq (Fix f)

Other solutions existed previously, but they’re less elegant:

deriving instance Eq (f (Fix f)) => Eq (Fix f)

instance Eq1 f => Eq (Fix f) where ...

It also lets us say that a monad transformer indeed transforms monads:

class (forall m. Monad m => Monad (t m)) => MonadTrans t where
  lift :: m a -> t m a

(Examples lifted from the GHC User Guide on QuantifiedConstraints, section Motivation.)

One restriction is that the conclusion of a quantified constraint cannot mention a type family.

type family F a

-- (forall a. C (F a))  -- Illegal type family application in a quantified constraint

A quantified constraint can be thought of as providing a local instance, and they are subject to a similar restriction on the shape of instance heads so that instance resolution may try to match required constraints with the head of existing instances.

Type families are not matchable: we cannot determine whether an applied type family F a matches a type constructor T in a manner satisfying the properties required by instance resolution (“coherence”). So type families can’t be in the conclusion of a type family.

The quantified constraint trick

Step 1

To legalize type families in quantified constraints, all we need is a class synonym:

class    C (F a) => CF a
instance C (F a) => CF a

That CF a is equivalent to C (F a), and forall a. CF a is legal.

Step 2?

Since GHC 9.2, Step 1 alone solves the problem. It Just Works™. And I don’t know why.

Before that, for GHC 9.0 and prior, we also needed to hold the compiler’s hand and tell it how to instantiate the quantified constraint.

Indeed, now functions may have constraints of the form forall a. CF a, which should imply C (F x) for any x. Although CF and C (F x) are logically related, when C (F x) is required, that triggers a search for instances of the class C, and not the CF which is provided by the quantified constraint. The search would fail unless some hint is provided to the compiler.

When you require a constraint C (F x), insert a type annotation mentioning the CF x constraint (using the CF class instead of C).

_ {- C (F x) available here -} :: CF x => _

Inside the annotation (to the left of ::), we are given CF x, from which C (F x) is inferred as a superclass. Outside the annotation, we are requiring CF x, which is trivially solved by the quantified constraint forall a. CF a.


-- Mixing quantified constraints with type families --

class C a
type family F a

-- forall a. C (F a)  -- Nope.

class    C (F a) => CF a  -- Class synonym
instance C (F a) => CF a

-- forall a. CF a     -- Yup.

-- Some provided function we want to call.
f :: C (F t) => t

-- A function we want to implement using f.
g :: (forall a. CF a) => t
g = f               -- OK on GHC >= 9.2
g = f :: CF t => t  -- Annotation needed on GHC <= 9.0

The part of that type annotation that really matters is the constraint. The rest of the type to the right of the arrow is redundant. Another way to write only the constraint uses the following identity function with a fancy type:

with :: forall c r. (c => r) -> (c => r)
with x = x

So you can supply the hint like this instead:

g :: forall t. (forall a. CF a) => t
g = with @(CF t) f

Application: generic-functor

What do I need that trick for? It comes up in generic metaprogramming.

Imagine deriving Functor for Generic types (no Generic1, which is not as general as you might hope). One way is to implement the following class on generic representations:

class RepFmap a a' rep rep' where
  repFmap :: (a -> a') -> rep -> rep'

A type constructor f :: Type -> Type will be a Functor when its generic representation (Rep) implements RepFmap a a'… for all a, a'.

-- Class synonym for generically derivable functors
class    (forall a. Generic (f a), forall a a'. RepFmap a a' (Rep (f a) ()) (Rep (f a') ())) => GFunctor f
instance ...   -- idem (class synonym)

-- Wait a second...

But that is illegal, because the type family Rep occurs in the conclusion of a quantified constraint.

Time for the trick! We give a new name to the conclusion:

class    RepFmap a a' (Rep (f a) ()) (Rep (f a') ()) => RepFmapRep a a' f
instance ...  -- idem (class synonym)

And we can use it in a quantified constraint:

-- Now this works!
class    (forall a. Generic (f a), forall a a'. RepFmapRep a a' f) => GFunctor f
instance ...   -- idem (class synonym)

To obtain the final generic implementation of fmap, we wrap repFmap between to and from.

gfmap :: forall f a a'. GFunctor f => (a -> a') -> f a -> f a'
gfmap f =
  with @(RepFmapRep a a' f)             -- Hand-holding for GHC <= 9.0
    (to @_ @() . repFmap f . from @_ @())

Et voilà.

(Gist of this example)

Appendix: Couldn’t we do this instead?

If you’ve followed all of that, there’s one other way you might try defining gfmap without QuantifiedConstraints, by just listing the three constraints actually needed in the body of the function.

-- Dangerous gfmap!
gfmap ::
  Generic (f a) =>
  Generic (f a') =>
  RepFmap a a' (Rep (f a) ()) (Rep (f a') ()) =>
  (a -> a') -> f a -> f a'
gfmap f = to @_ @() . repFmap f . from @_ @()

This is okay as long as it is only ever used to implement fmap as in:

fmap = gfmap

Any other use voids a guarantee you didn’t know you expected.

The thing I haven’t told you is that RepFmap is implemented with… incoherent instances!1 In fact, this gfmap may behave differently depending on how it is instantiated at compile time.

For example, for a functor with a field of constant type:

data T a b = C Int a b
  deriving Generic

gfmap @(T a) @b @b' where a, b and b' are distinct type variables behaves like fmap should. But gfmap @(T Int) @Int @Int will unexpectedly apply its argument function to every field. They all have type Int, so a function Int -> Int can and will be applied to all fields.

I could demonstrate this if I had implemented RepFmap… Luckily, there is a more general version of this “dangerous gfmap” readily available in my library generic-functor. It can be very incoherent, but if you follow some rules, it can also be very fun to use.

Playing with fire

gsolomap2 is a function from generic-functor that can implement fmap, and much more.

fmapT :: (b -> b') -> T a b -> T a b'
fmapT = gsolomap

Map over the first parameter if you prefer:

firstT :: (a -> a') -> T a b -> T a' b
firstT = gsolomap

Or map over both type parameters at once:

bothT :: (a -> a') -> T a a -> T a' a'
bothT = gsolomap

I don’t know what to call this, but gsolomap also does what you might guess from this type:

watT ::
  (a -> a') ->
  T (a , a ) ((a  -> a') -> Maybe a ) ->
  T (a', a') ((a' -> a ) -> Maybe a') 
watT = gsolomap

It’s important to specialize gsolomap with distinct type variables (a and a'). You cannot refactor code by inlining a function if its body uses gsolomap, as it risks breaking that requirement.

Witnessing incoherence

For an example of surprising result caused by incoherence, apply the fmapT defined above to some concrete arguments. See how the result changes then you replace fmapT with its definition, gsolomap.

fmapT    ((+1) :: Int -> Int) (C 0 0 0) == C 0 0 1 :: T Int Int
gsolomap ((+1) :: Int -> Int) (C 0 0 0) == C 1 1 1 :: T Int Int  -- Noooooo...

(Gist of those gsolomap (counter)examples)

This is why gfmap’s signature should use quantified constraints: this guarantees that when the RepFmap constraint is solved, the first two parameters are going to be distinct type variables, thanks to the universal quantification (forall a a'). Thus, incoherence is hidden away.

Following that recipe, generic-functor contains safe implementations of Functor, Foldable, Traversable, Bifunctor, and Bitraversable.

In particular, the type of gfmap guarantees that it has a unique inhabitant satisfying gfmap id = id, and this property is quite straightforward to check by visual inspection of the implementation.

After all, gfmap will essentially do one of three things: (1) it will be id on types that don’t mention the type parameters in its function argument a -> a', (2) it will apply the provided function f, or (3) it will fmap (or bimap, or dimap) itself through a type constructor. In all cases (with some inductive reasoning for (3)), if f = id, then gfmap f = id.

gfmap f = id
gfmap f = f
gfmap f = fmap (gfmap f)

The dangerous gfmap (without QuantifiedConstraints) or gsolomap fail this property, because the extra occurrences of a and a' in its constraint make their signatures have a different “shape” from fmap.

The trade-off is that those safe functions can’t do the same crazy things as gsolomap above.

  1. AFAICT there is no way around that with GHC.Generics. Incoherent instances can be avoided with kind-generics.↩︎

  2. gsolomap accepts one function parameter. There is also gmultimap which accepts arbitrarily many functions.↩︎