约束类型类或实例的派生变量

Question

I'm writing a type class for my pipes library to define an abstract interface to Proxy -like types. The type class looks something like:

class ProxyC p where
    idT   :: (Monad m) => b' -> p a' a b' b m r
    (<-<) :: (Monad m)
          => (c' -> p b' b c' c m r)
          -> (b' -> p a' a b' b m r)
          -> (c' -> p a' a c' c m r)
    ... -- other methods

I'm also writing extensions for the Proxy type that are of the form:

instance (ProxyC p) => ProxyC (SomeExtension p) where ....

... and I'd like these instances to be able to impose an additional constraint that if m is a Monad then pa' ab' bm is a Monad for all a' , a , b' , and b .

However, I have no clue how to cleanly encode that as a constraint either for the ProxyC class or for the instances. The only solution I currently know of is to do something like encoding it in the method signatures of the class:

    (<-<) :: (Monad m, Monad (p b' b c' c m), Monad (p a' a b' b m))
          => (c' -> p b' b c' c m r)
          -> (b' -> p a' a b' b m r)
          -> (c' -> p a' a c' c m r)

... but I was hoping there would be a simpler and more elegant solution.

: And not even that last solution works, since the compiler does not deduce that (Monad (SomeExtension pa' ab' bm)) implies (Monad (pa' ab' bm)) for a specific choice of variables, even when given the following instance:

instance (Monad (p a b m)) => Monad (SomeExtension p a b m) where ...

: The next solution I'm considering is just duplicating the methods for the Monad class within the ProxyC class:

class ProxyC p where
    return' :: (Monad m) => r -> p a' a b' b m r
    (!>=) :: (Monad m) => ...

... and then instantiating them with each ProxyC instance. This seems okay for my purposes since the Monad methods only need to be used internally for extension writing and the original type still has a proper Monad instance for the downstream user. All this does is just expose the Monad methods to the instance writer.

Answer 1

a rather trivial way to do this is use a GADT to move the proof to the value level

data IsMonad m where
  IsMonad :: Monad m => IsMonad m 

class ProxyC p where
  getProxyMonad :: Monad m => IsMonad (p a' a b' b m)

you will need to explicitly open the dictionary wherever you need it

--help avoid type signatures
monadOf :: IsMonad m -> m a -> IsMonad m
monadOf = const

--later on
case getProxyMonad `monadOf` ... of
  IsMonad -> ...

the tactic of using GADTs to pass proofs of propositions is really very general. If you are okay using constraint kinds, and not just GADTs, you can instead use Edward Kmett's Data.Constraint package

class ProxyC p where
  getProxyMonad :: Monad m => Dict (Monad (p a' a b' b m))

which lets you defined

getProxyMonad' :: ProxyC p => (Monad m) :- (Monad (p a' a b' b m))
getProxyMonad' = Sub getProxyMonad

and then use a fancy infix operator to tell the compiler where to look for the monad instance

 ... \\ getProxyMonad'

in fact, the :- entailment type forms a category (where the objects are constraints), and this category has lots of nice structure, which is to say it is pretty nice to do proofs with.

ps none of these snippets are tested.

edit: you could also combine the value level proofs with a newtype wrapper and not need to open GADTs all over the place

newtype WrapP p a' a b' b m r = WrapP {unWrapP :: p a' a b' b m r}

instance ProxyC p => Monad (WrapP p) where
  return = case getProxyMonad of
                Dict -> WrapP . return
  (>>=) = case getProxyMonad of
               Dict -> \m f -> WrapP $ (unWrapP m) >>= (unWrapP . f)

instance ProxyC p => ProxyC (WrapP p) where
  ...

I suspect, but obviously have not tested, that this implementation will also be relatively efficient.