I have this code snippet which uses a plethora of GHC extensions:
{-# LANGUAGE ConstraintKinds #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
import GHC.Exts (Constraint)
data HList :: [*] -> * where
Nil :: HList '[]
Cons :: a -> HList l -> HList (a ': l)
type family All (p :: * -> Constraint) (xs :: HList [*]) :: Constraint where
All p Nil = ()
All p (Cons x xs) = (p x, All p xs)
GHC complains that:
‘HList’ of kind ‘[*] -> *’ is not promotable
In the kind ‘HList [*]’
Why can't I promote HList
to a kind? I get the same error using GHC 7.8.2
and 7.11
.
Of course, using the builtin '[]
works just fine:
type family All (p :: * -> Constraint) (xs :: [*]) :: Constraint where
All p '[] = ()
All p (x ': xs) = (p x, All p xs)
I want to use my own HList
instead of '[]
because the actual HList
supports appending and looks like this:
type family (:++:) (xs :: [*]) (ys :: [*]) where
'[] :++: ys = ys
xs :++: '[] = xs
(x ': xs) :++: ys = x ': (xs :++: ys)
data HList :: [*] -> * where
Nil :: HList '[]
Cons :: a -> HList l -> HList (a ': l)
App :: Hlist a -> HList b -> HList (a :++: b)
EDIT: The main goal is to have GHC infer
(All p xs, All p ys) ==> All p (xs :++: ys)
so that I can write
data Dict :: Constraint -> * where
Dict :: c => Dict c
witness :: Dict (All p xs) -> Dict (All p ys) -> Dict (All p (xs :++: ys))
witness Dict Dict = Dict
I had hoped that adding an explicit representation for appending type-level lists would help me achieve this. Is there another way to convince GHC of the above?
I see now that the question is how to write a proof of
(All p xs, All p ys) => All p (xs :++: ys)
. The answer is, by induction, of course!The type of the function we really want to write is
but Haskell doesn't have dependent types. "Faking" dependent types usually means having a witness that carries a proof that a type exists. This makes things somewhat tedious, but currently there is no other way. We already have a witness for a list
xs
- it is preciselyHList xs
. For constraints, we will useThen we can write implication as a simple function:
So our type becomes:
The body of the function is quite straightforward - note how each pattern in
allAppend
matches each pattern in the definition of:++:
:The opposite entailment
All p (xs :++: ys) => (All p xs, All p ys)
also holds. In fact, the function definition is identical.