6.11.5. Lexically scoped type variables

ScopedTypeVariables
Implies:ExplicitForAll
Since:6.8.1

Enable lexical scoping of type variables explicitly introduced with forall.

Tip

ScopedTypeVariables breaks GHC’s usual rule that explicit forall is optional and doesn’t affect semantics. For the Declaration type signatures (or Expression type signatures) examples in this section, the explicit forall is required. (If omitted, usually the program will not compile; in a few cases it will compile but the functions get a different signature.) To trigger those forms of ScopedTypeVariables, the forall must appear against the top-level signature (or outer expression) but not against nested signatures referring to the same type variables.

Explicit forall is not always required – see pattern signature equivalent for the example in this section, or Pattern type signatures.

GHC supports lexically scoped type variables, without which some type signatures are simply impossible to write. For example:

f :: forall a. [a] -> [a]
f xs = ys ++ ys
     where
       ys :: [a]
       ys = reverse xs

The type signature for f brings the type variable a into scope, because of the explicit forall (Declaration type signatures). The type variables bound by a forall scope over the entire definition of the accompanying value declaration. In this example, the type variable a scopes over the whole definition of f, including over the type signature for ys. In Haskell 98 it is not possible to declare a type for ys; a major benefit of scoped type variables is that it becomes possible to do so.

An equivalent form for that example, avoiding explicit forall uses Pattern type signatures:

f :: [a] -> [a]
f (xs :: [aa]) = xs ++ ys
  where
    ys :: [aa]
    ys = reverse xs

Unlike the forall form, type variable a from f‘s signature is not scoped over f‘s equation(s). Type variable aa bound by the pattern signature is scoped over the right-hand side of f‘s equation. (Therefore there is no need to use a distinct type variable; using a would be equivalent.)

6.11.5.1. Overview

The design follows the following principles

  • A scoped type variable stands for a type variable, and not for a type. (This is a change from GHC’s earlier design.)
  • Furthermore, distinct lexical type variables stand for distinct type variables. This means that every programmer-written type signature (including one that contains free scoped type variables) denotes a rigid type; that is, the type is fully known to the type checker, and no inference is involved.
  • Lexical type variables may be alpha-renamed freely, without changing the program.

A lexically scoped type variable can be bound by:

In Haskell, a programmer-written type signature is implicitly quantified over its free type variables (Section 4.1.2 of the Haskell Report). Lexically scoped type variables affect this implicit quantification rules as follows: any type variable that is in scope is not universally quantified. For example, if type variable a is in scope, then

(e :: a -> a)     means     (e :: a -> a)
(e :: b -> b)     means     (e :: forall b. b->b)
(e :: a -> b)     means     (e :: forall b. a->b)

6.11.5.2. Declaration type signatures

A declaration type signature that has explicit quantification (using forall) brings into scope the explicitly-quantified type variables, in the definition of the named function. For example:

f :: forall a. [a] -> [a]
f (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: a ]

The “forall a” brings “a” into scope in the definition of “f”.

This only happens if:

  • The quantification in f‘s type signature is explicit. For example:

    g :: [a] -> [a]
    g (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: a ]
    

    This program will be rejected, because “a” does not scope over the definition of “g”, so “x::a” means “x::forall a. a” by Haskell’s usual implicit quantification rules.

  • The type variable is quantified by the single, syntactically visible, outermost forall of the type signature. For example, GHC will reject all of the following examples:

    f1 :: forall a. forall b. a -> [b] -> [b]
    f1 _ (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: b ]
    
    f2 :: forall a. a -> forall b. [b] -> [b]
    f2 _ (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: b ]
    
    type Foo = forall b. [b] -> [b]
    
    f3 :: Foo
    f3 (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: b ]
    

    In f1 and f2, the type variable b is not quantified by the outermost forall, so it is not in scope over the bodies of the functions. Neither is b in scope over the body of f3, as the forall is tucked underneath the Foo type synonym.

  • The signature gives a type for a function binding or a bare variable binding, not a pattern binding. For example:

    f1 :: forall a. [a] -> [a]
    f1 (x:xs) = xs ++ [ x :: a ]   -- OK
    
    f2 :: forall a. [a] -> [a]
    f2 = \(x:xs) -> xs ++ [ x :: a ]   -- OK
    
    f3 :: forall a. [a] -> [a]
    Just f3 = Just (\(x:xs) -> xs ++ [ x :: a ])   -- Not OK!
    

    f1 is a function binding, and f2 binds a bare variable; in both cases the type signature brings a into scope. However the binding for f3 is a pattern binding, and so f3 is a fresh variable brought into scope by the pattern, not connected with top level f3. Then type variable a is not in scope of the right-hand side of Just f3 = ....

6.11.5.3. Expression type signatures

An expression type signature that has explicit quantification (using forall) brings into scope the explicitly-quantified type variables, in the annotated expression. For example:

f = runST ( (op >>= \(x :: STRef s Int) -> g x) :: forall s. ST s Bool )

Here, the type signature forall s. ST s Bool brings the type variable s into scope, in the annotated expression (op >>= \(x :: STRef s Int) -> g x).

6.11.5.4. Pattern type signatures

A type signature may occur in any pattern; this is a pattern type signature. For example:

-- f and g assume that 'a' is already in scope
f = \(x::Int, y::a) -> x

g (x::a) = x

h ((x,y) :: (Int,Bool)) = (y,x)

In the case where all the type variables in the pattern type signature are already in scope (i.e. bound by the enclosing context), matters are simple: the signature simply constrains the type of the pattern in the obvious way.

Unlike expression and declaration type signatures, pattern type signatures are not implicitly generalised. The pattern in a pattern binding may only mention type variables that are already in scope. For example:

f :: forall a. [a] -> (Int, [a])
f xs = (n, zs)
  where
    (ys::[a], n) = (reverse xs, length xs) -- OK
    (zs::[a])    = xs ++ ys                     -- OK

    Just (v::b)  = ...  -- Not OK; b is not in scope

Here, the pattern signatures for ys and zs are fine, but the one for v is not because b is not in scope.

However, in all patterns other than pattern bindings, a pattern type signature may mention a type variable that is not in scope; in this case, the signature brings that type variable into scope. For example:

-- same f and g as above, now assuming that 'a' is not already in scope
f = \(x::Int, y::a) -> x           -- 'a' is in scope on RHS of ->

g (x::a) = x :: a

hh (Just (v :: b)) = v :: b

The pattern type signature makes the type variable available on the right-hand side of the equation.

Bringing type variables into scope is particularly important for existential data constructors. For example:

data T = forall a. MkT [a]

k :: T -> T
k (MkT [t::a]) =
    MkT t3
  where
    (t3::[a]) = [t,t,t]

Here, the pattern type signature [t::a] mentions a lexical type variable that is not already in scope. Indeed, it must not already be in scope, because it is bound by the pattern match. The effect is to bring it into scope, standing for the existentially-bound type variable.

It does seem odd that the existentially-bound type variable must not be already in scope. Contrast that usually name-bindings merely shadow (make a ‘hole’) in a same-named outer variable’s scope. But we must have some way to bring such type variables into scope, else we could not name existentially-bound type variables in subsequent type signatures.

Compare the two (identical) definitions for examples f, g; they are both legal whether or not a is already in scope. They differ in that if a is already in scope, the signature constrains the pattern, rather than the pattern binding the variable.

6.11.5.5. Class and instance declarations

The type variables in the head of a class or instance declaration scope over the methods defined in the where part. You do not even need an explicit forall (although you are allowed an explicit forall in an instance declaration; see Explicit universal quantification (forall)). For example:

class C a where
  op :: [a] -> a

  op xs = let ys::[a]
              ys = reverse xs
          in
          head ys

instance C b => C [b] where
  op xs = reverse (head (xs :: [[b]]))