Haxe Code Cookbook

Enums as GADTs

As already established Haxe enums are a form of algebraic data types. In fact, they may even serve as so called "generalized algebraic data types" - GADTs for short. While for an "ordinary" enum every constructor yields the same type, with an GADT each constructor may yield a different type.

To illustrate that, let's define a little language for arithmetic expressions:

enum Expr<T> {
  Sum(a:Expr<Float>, b:Expr<Float>):Expr<Float>; 
  Product(a:Expr<Float>, b:Expr<Float>):Expr<Float>;
  Power(a:Expr<Float>, b:Expr<Float>):Expr<Float>; // <-- this constructor returns an Expr<Float> ...
  
  GreaterThan(a:Expr<Float>, b:Expr<Float>):Expr<Bool>;// <-- ... and this one an Expr<Bool>
  Not(a:Expr<Bool>):Expr<Bool>;
  Or(a:Expr<Bool>, b:Expr<Bool>):Expr<Bool>;
  And(a:Expr<Bool>, b:Expr<Bool>):Expr<Bool>;
  
  Const(v:T):Expr<T>;
  Equals<O>(a:Expr<O>, b:Expr<O>):Expr<Bool>;
}

So now we can say: I want a numeric expression or a boolean one, by either saying Expr<Float> or Expr<Bool>.

The last two constructors in the example are particularly interesting:

  • Const may accept a value of any type and becomes and Expr of that type.
  • Equals has a type parameter. This is actually not GADT specific. Ordinary enum constructors may have this too, because at the bottom line they are functions and may therefore be parametrized. In the case of Equals it is the type of the Expr being compared. It is arbitrary, but still must be equal for both operands and the result will always be boolean. This models very closely how == works.

For example 1.0 + 1.0 == 2 could be written as Equals(Sum(Const(1.0), Const(1.0)), Const(2.0)) and will compile, as opposed to Equals(Const(3.14), Const('test')) which will fail with String should be Float exactly as 3.14 == 'test'.

The compiler performs the desired type checks when constructing GADTs. It does the same when deconstructing them.

To see that in action, let's have a look at how we would evaluate a numeric expression:

function valueOf(f:Expr<Float>):Float {
  return switch f {
    case Const(v): v;
    case Sum(a, b): valueOf(a) + valueOf(b);
    case Product(a, b): valueOf(a) * valueOf(b);
    case Power(a, b): Math.pow(valueOf(a), valueOf(b));
  }
}

That's it already. Try omitting any constructor that can return Expr<Float> (which does include Const for which that is just a special case) and Haxe's exhaustiveness check will tell you a case is not covered. Check against a constructor that is Expr<Bool> and Haxe will tell you this:

Expr<Bool> should be Expr<Float>
Type parameters are invariant
Bool should be Float

So if we pick the type parameter, Haxe will reduce the number of cases for us. If we leave the parameter unbound, we must treat all cases:

function eval<V>(e:Expr<V>):V {
  return switch e {
    case Const(v): 
      $type(e); // Expr<eval.V>
      v;
    case Sum(a, b): 
      $type(e); // Expr<Float>
      eval(a) + eval(b);
    case Product(a, b): 
      eval(a) * eval(b);
    case Power(a, b): 
      Math.pow(eval(a), eval(b));
    case GreaterThan(a, b): 
      eval(a) > eval(b);
    case Equals(a, b): 
      $type(e); // Expr<Bool>
      $type(a); // Expr<Equals.O>
      eval(a) == eval(b);
    case Not(a): 
      !eval(a);
    case Or(a, b): 
      eval(a) || eval(b);
    case And(a, b): 
      eval(a) && eval(b);
  }
}

Notice how in each case Expr.T may assume a different type. In the first case it remains unbound, in the second it becomes Float and further below it is Bool. Try returning 5 in the first case and the compiler will tell you Int should be eval.V.

All in all, this is a very powerful feature, capable of expressing extremely complex type structures.


Category:    Functional Programming