In OCaml, what type definition is this: 'a. unit
Questions
It was my first time I saw a type definition like 'a. unit -> 'a 'a. unit -> 'a in Explicit polymorphic type in record
Q1 : What is this 'a. (notice the dot)?
Q2 : What is the terminology for this kind of type definition?
If I do
let f:'a. 'a list -> int = fun l -> List.length l;;
utop shows
val f : 'a list -> int = <fun>
Q3 : Why doesn't utop shows the type 'a. 'a list -> int 'a. 'a list -> int ?
Q4 : When should I use this kind of type definition?
In addition, I can use this kind of definition in record:
type t = { f: 'a. 'a list -> int};; (* this is correct *)
but I can't use it in variants:
type t = Node of ('a. 'a list -> int);; (* this is wrong *)
Q5 : why?
Update / Summary
I did some experiments on this forall type definition as I can't find any articles on the web about this topic in OCaml and I want to induct to find out what's behind.
I summarise these experiments here and hope someone might give more insight.
From the answer below and its comments, I feel 'a. is a kind of force forall thing.
1. 'a. in function definition
let f:('a -> int) = fun x -> x + 1 (* correct *)
Above is fine because OCaml is free to narrow down the type of f's parameter and replace 'a with int .
However,
let f:'a. ('a -> int) = fun x -> x + 1 (* wrong *)
This won't pass compiler, because it forces f to be applicable on all types via 'a. . Apparently, it is impossible from the definition part as the only possible type for x is int .
This example is interesting as it shows the logic and magic behind OCaml's static type inferring system. The types normally show themselves naturally from the function definition, ie, you care more about what the function does, instead of giving a type first.
To me, it makes rare sense to really use 'a. when defining functions, as if the function's definition can handle all types, its type will naturally be 'a. ; if the function anyway cannot handle all types, it makes no sense to force all types. I guess this is one of the reasons why the OCaml top-level usually doesn't bother showing it
2, 'a. in type inferring
let foo f = f [1;2;3] + f [4;5;6] (* correct *)
function f will be inferred as int list -> int because OCaml sees [1;2;3] first and it is a int list , so OCaml assumes f will take int list .
Also this is why the below code fails as the 2nd list is string list
let foo f = f [1;2;3] + f ["1";"2";"3"] (* wrong*)
Even if I know List.length would be a good candidate for f , OCaml won't allow due to the type infer system.
I thought if I force f to be 'a. , then f can handle both int list and string list in foo , so I did:
let foo (f:'a. 'a list -> int) = f [1;2;3] + f ["1";"2";"3"];; (* wrong *)
It failed and OCaml seems not allow it. and I guess this is why you cannot always do type inference in the presence of impredicative polymorphism, so OCaml restricts its use to record fields and object methods.
3. 'a. in record
Normally I take 'a from the type parameter like this:
type 'a a_record = {f: 'a list -> int};; (* correct *)
However, the limitation is once you apply you get the concrete type:
let foo t = t.f [1;2;3] + t.f [4;5;6];; (* correct *)
OCaml will infer t as an int a_record , not a 'a a_record anymore. So the below will fail:
let foo t = t.f [1;2;3] + t.f ["1";"2";"3"];; (* wrong*)
In this case, we can use 'a. as OCaml allows it in record type.
type b_record = {f: 'a. 'a list -> int};; (* correct *)
let foo t = t.f [1;2;3] + t.f ["1";"2";"3"];; (* correct *)
b_record is itself a concrete record type and its f can be applied on all types of lists. then our foo above will pass OCaml.
'a. means "for all types 'a". The OCaml top-level usually doesn't bother showing it, which is why it doesn't appear in the output. Any expression printed that contains type variables has an implicit forall at the start unless shown elsewhere.
When defining a function, it can be useful to add this at the start to ensure the type is polymorphic. eg
# let f : ('a -> 'a) = fun x -> x + 1;;
val f : int -> int = <fun>
Here, the 'a -> 'a just constrains the function's output type to be the same as its input type, but OCaml is free to limit it further. With the 'a. , this doesn't happen:
# let f : 'a. ('a -> 'a) = fun x -> x + 1;;
Error: This definition has type int -> int which is less general than
'a. 'a -> 'a
You need to specify the 'a. when defining record or object types and you want to scope the type variable to an individual member rather than to the whole object.
上一篇: 线程调度程序在Java与单个CPU？