|The Universe of Discourse|
12 recent entries
Fri, 18 Jul 2014
Earlier this week I gave a talk about the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Talks never go quite the way you expect. The biggest sticking point was my assertion that there is no function with the type a → b. I mentioned this as a throwaway remark on slide 7, assuming that everyone would agree instantly, and then we got totally hung up on it for about twenty minutes.
Part of this was my surprise at discovering that most of the audience (members of the Philly Lambda functional programming group) was not familiar with the Haskell type system. I had assumed that most of the members of a functional programming interest group would be familiar with one of Haskell, ML, or Scala, all of which have the same basic type system. But this was not the case. (Many people are primarily interested in Scheme, for example.)
I think the main problem was that I did not make clear to the audience what Haskell means when it says that a function has type a → b. At the talk, and then later on Reddit people asked
If you know one of the HM languages, you know that of course it
doesn't; it has type
A function which takes an integer and returns a string does not have
the type a → b; it has the type Int → String. You must pass it an
integer, and you may only use its return value in a place that makes
sense for a string. If f has this type, then
But if f had
the type a → b, then
Say function f had type a → b. Then you would be able to use the
and they would all type check correctly, regardless of the type of x. In the first line, f x would return a number; in the second line f would return a list; in the third line it would return a string, and in the fourth line it would return a boolean. And in each case f could be able to do what was required regardless of the type of x, so without even looking at x. But how could you possibly write such a function f? You can't; it's impossible.
Contrast this with the identity function
as long as x has the right type for
as long as
Actually I wonder now if part of the problem is that we like to write a → b when what we really mean is the type ∀a.∀b.a → b. Perhaps making the quantifiers explicit would clear things up? I suppose it probably wouldn't have, at least in this case.
The issue is a bit complicated by the fact that the function
does have the type a → b, and, in a language with exceptions,
Unfortunately, just as I thought I was getting across the explanation of why there can be no function with type a → b, someone brought up exceptions and I had to mutter and look at my shoes. (You can also take the view that these functions have type a → ⊥, but the logical principle ⊥ → b is unexceptionable.)
In fact, experienced practitioners will realize, the instant the type
a → b appears, that they have written a function that never returns.
Such an example was directly responsible for my own initial interest
in functional programming and type systems; I read a 1992 paper (“An
anecdote about ML type
by Andrew R. Koenig in which he described writing a merge sort
function, whose type was reported (by the SML type inferencer) as
Any discussion of the Curry-Howard isomorphism, using Haskell as an example, is somewhat fraught with trouble, because Haskell's type logic is utterly inconsistent. In addition to the examples above, in Haskell one can write
and as a statement of logic, !!(a\to a)\to a!! is patently false. This might be an argument in favor of the Total Functional Programming suggested by D.A. Turner and others.