CODEWITHSUNDEEP
haskellpolymorphism
dumb0
dumb0

Reputation: 337

Polymorphic function to convert between two types

Is it possible to code in either Haskell98 or with extensions the following function f?

f :: (a -> b) -> (b -> a) -> c -> d
where (c,d) :: (a,b) || (c,d) :: (b,a)

I am attempting to create some generic function to convert between any two types a and b but am having difficulty with both being somewhat arbitrary. They are immediately set however by the first argument a ->b, so I'm hoping this is possible. Any guidance is appreciated...

Thanks!

[EDIT]

The way I see it, my question question boils down to whether haskell's type system supports the or keyword... as the intuitive signature of my function is: f :: (a->b) -> (b->a) -> a -> b or (a->b) -> (b->a) -> b -> a...

Upvotes: 2

Views: 229

Answers (4)

Vladimir Matveev
Vladimir Matveev

Reputation: 127711

I doubt that it is possible to do what you want directly, but you can use some workarounds:

{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleInstances #-}

class Converter a b c where
    ($$) :: a -> b -> c

data Conv a b = Conv a b

instance Converter (Conv (a -> b) (b -> a)) a b where
    ($$) (Conv f _) = f

instance Converter (Conv (a -> b) (b -> a)) b a where
    ($$) (Conv _ g) = g

intToString :: Int -> String
intToString = show

stringToInt :: String -> Int
stringToInt = read

printString :: String -> IO ()
printString = print

printInt :: Int -> IO ()
printInt = print

main = do
    let convert = Conv intToString stringToInt
    printString $ convert $$ (12345 :: Int)
    printInt $ convert $$ "12345"

I believe this is sufficiently close to what you want. The only difference is a mandatory $$ operator, but it is inevitable.

Update: you can even drop special Conv structure and use plain tuples:

instance Converter (a -> b, b -> a) a b where
    ($$) (f, _) = f

instance Converter (a -> b, b -> a) b a where
    ($$) (_, g) = g

-- ...
printString $ (intToString, stringToInt) $$ (12345 :: Int)
printInt $ (intToString, stringToInt) $$ "12345"

I think this is even closer to your requirement.

Upvotes: 6

duplode
duplode

Reputation: 34378

As alecb explains, it can't be done in the way your signature suggests, at least through ordinary means (it would require checking the types at runtime). An alternative you might like are Iso and Prism from lens. Iso fits the bill if your conversion functions are total and bijective; if one of the functions is partial you can use a Prism instead. Here is a throwaway example:

import Control.Lens
import Text.ReadMaybe

stringInt :: Prism' String Int
stringInt = prism' show readMaybe


GHCi> "3" ^? stringInt
Just 3
it :: Maybe Int
GHCi> 3 ^. re stringInt
"3"
it :: String

Upvotes: 8

Benesh
Benesh

Reputation: 3428

Let's say we've got these two conversion functions:

i2s :: Int -> String
s2i :: String -> Int

What would be the type of g = f i2s s2i? We'd like g 1 to be a legal expression, and also g "one". So g accepts Int and String. That leaves us with three options:

  1. g is a fully polymorphic function - that is, it's first argument is of type a. So g True and g [1,2,3] are also legal. A function so generic has nothing to do with conversion, and you can prove that this sort of functions can't do anything interesting (for example, a function of type a -> Int must be constant)

  2. g expects an argument of a certain typeclass - for example, show is a function that accepts only a restricted groups of types (including Int and String). But now your function is not fully polymorphic - it'll work only for this restricted type group.

  3. We can define a new data type for this task:

    data IntOrString = I Int | S String

-- the type signature is slightly different
f :: (Int -> String) -> (String -> Int) -> IntOrString -> IntOrString
f i2s s2i (I n) = S $ i2s n
f i2s s2i (S s) = I $ s2i S

    While this function may be useful in some cases, it's not generic anymore (the only pair it supports is Int and String).

So the answer is - you can define a function with this type signature, but it will work only for a specific type or typeclass.

EDIT: No, there's no support for a function of type a -> b where a is Int or String. This requires either a dynamic language or a static language that supports subtyping.

Upvotes: 6

alecbz
alecbz

Reputation: 6488

I'm not totally sure how you'd expect to use such a function, but my intuition is no. Suppose we had:

intToString :: Int -> String
intToString = show

stringToInt :: String -> Int
stringToInt = read

foo = f intToString stringToInt

What is foo's type? You'd have to be able to apply foo to both an Int and a String, and this is generally not possible in haskell: you could apply foo to one or the other but not both.

edit: This doesn't feel like the whole story -- foo could certainly be of type foo :: c -> d, but this would allow it to be applied to any type, not just Int or String. Perhaps it would be possible to throw an error when applied to the wrong type. Even if something like that is possible though, it doesn't sound like a good idea.

Upvotes: 3

Related Questions