6.11.5. Implicit parameters¶

ImplicitParams
¶ Since: 6.8.1 Allow definition of functions expecting implicit parameters.
Implicit parameters are implemented as described in [Lewis2000] and enabled
with the option ImplicitParams
. (Most of the following, still rather
incomplete, documentation is due to Jeff Lewis.)
[Lewis2000]  “Implicit parameters: dynamic scoping with static types”, J Lewis, MB Shields, E Meijer, J Launchbury, 27th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL‘00), Boston, Jan 2000. 
A variable is called dynamically bound when it is bound by the calling context of a function and statically bound when bound by the callee’s context. In Haskell, all variables are statically bound. Dynamic binding of variables is a notion that goes back to Lisp, but was later discarded in more modern incarnations, such as Scheme. Dynamic binding can be very confusing in an untyped language, and unfortunately, typed languages, in particular HindleyMilner typed languages like Haskell, only support static scoping of variables.
However, by a simple extension to the type class system of Haskell, we
can support dynamic binding. Basically, we express the use of a
dynamically bound variable as a constraint on the type. These
constraints lead to types of the form (?x::t') => t
, which says
“this function uses a dynamicallybound variable ?x
of type t'
”.
For example, the following expresses the type of a sort function,
implicitly parameterised by a comparison function named cmp
.
sort :: (?cmp :: a > a > Bool) => [a] > [a]
The dynamic binding constraints are just a new form of predicate in the type class system.
An implicit parameter occurs in an expression using the special form
?x
, where x
is any valid identifier (e.g. ord ?x
is a valid
expression). Use of this construct also introduces a new dynamicbinding
constraint in the type of the expression. For example, the following
definition shows how we can define an implicitly parameterised sort
function in terms of an explicitly parameterised sortBy
function:
sortBy :: (a > a > Bool) > [a] > [a]
sort :: (?cmp :: a > a > Bool) => [a] > [a]
sort = sortBy ?cmp
6.11.5.1. Implicitparameter type constraints¶
Dynamic binding constraints behave just like other type class
constraints in that they are automatically propagated. Thus, when a
function is used, its implicit parameters are inherited by the function
that called it. For example, our sort
function might be used to pick
out the least value in a list:
least :: (?cmp :: a > a > Bool) => [a] > a
least xs = head (sort xs)
Without lifting a finger, the ?cmp
parameter is propagated to become
a parameter of least
as well. With explicit parameters, the default
is that parameters must always be explicit propagated. With implicit
parameters, the default is to always propagate them.
An implicitparameter type constraint differs from other type class
constraints in the following way: All uses of a particular implicit
parameter must have the same type. This means that the type of
(?x, ?x)
is (?x::a) => (a,a)
, and not
(?x::a, ?x::b) => (a, b)
, as would be the case for type class
constraints.
You can’t have an implicit parameter in the context of a class or instance declaration. For example, both these declarations are illegal:
class (?x::Int) => C a where ...
instance (?x::a) => Foo [a] where ...
Reason: exactly which implicit parameter you pick up depends on exactly where you invoke a function. But the “invocation” of instance declarations is done behind the scenes by the compiler, so it’s hard to figure out exactly where it is done. Easiest thing is to outlaw the offending types.
Implicitparameter constraints do not cause ambiguity. For example, consider:
f :: (?x :: [a]) => Int > Int
f n = n + length ?x
g :: (Read a, Show a) => String > String
g s = show (read s)
Here, g
has an ambiguous type, and is rejected, but f
is fine.
The binding for ?x
at f
‘s call site is quite unambiguous, and
fixes the type a
.
6.11.5.2. Implicitparameter bindings¶
An implicit parameter is bound using the standard let
or where
binding forms. For example, we define the min
function by binding
cmp
.
min :: Ord a => [a] > a
min = let ?cmp = (<=) in least
A group of implicitparameter bindings may occur anywhere a normal group
of Haskell bindings can occur, except at top level. That is, they can
occur in a let
(including in a list comprehension, or donotation,
or pattern guards), or a where
clause. Note the following points:
An implicitparameter binding group must be a collection of simple bindings to implicitstyle variables (no functionstyle bindings, and no type signatures); these bindings are neither polymorphic or recursive.
You may not mix implicitparameter bindings with ordinary bindings in a single
let
expression; use two nestedlet
s instead. (In the case ofwhere
you are stuck, since you can’t nestwhere
clauses.)You may put multiple implicitparameter bindings in a single binding group; but they are not treated as a mutually recursive group (as ordinary
let
bindings are). Instead they are treated as a nonrecursive group, simultaneously binding all the implicit parameter. The bindings are not nested, and may be reordered without changing the meaning of the program. For example, consider:f t = let { ?x = t; ?y = ?x+(1::Int) } in ?x + ?y
The use of
?x
in the binding for?y
does not “see” the binding for?x
, so the type off
isf :: (?x::Int) => Int > Int
6.11.5.3. Implicit parameters and polymorphic recursion¶
Consider these two definitions:
len1 :: [a] > Int
len1 xs = let ?acc = 0 in len_acc1 xs
len_acc1 [] = ?acc
len_acc1 (x:xs) = let ?acc = ?acc + (1::Int) in len_acc1 xs

len2 :: [a] > Int
len2 xs = let ?acc = 0 in len_acc2 xs
len_acc2 :: (?acc :: Int) => [a] > Int
len_acc2 [] = ?acc
len_acc2 (x:xs) = let ?acc = ?acc + (1::Int) in len_acc2 xs
The only difference between the two groups is that in the second group
len_acc
is given a type signature. In the former case, len_acc1
is monomorphic in its own righthand side, so the implicit parameter
?acc
is not passed to the recursive call. In the latter case,
because len_acc2
has a type signature, the recursive call is made to
the polymorphic version, which takes ?acc
as an implicit
parameter. So we get the following results in GHCi:
Prog> len1 "hello"
0
Prog> len2 "hello"
5
Adding a type signature dramatically changes the result! This is a rather counterintuitive phenomenon, worth watching out for.
6.11.5.4. Implicit parameters and monomorphism¶
GHC applies the dreaded Monomorphism Restriction (section 4.5.5 of the Haskell Report) to implicit parameters. For example, consider:
f :: Int > Int
f v = let ?x = 0 in
let y = ?x + v in
let ?x = 5 in
y
Since the binding for y
falls under the Monomorphism Restriction it
is not generalised, so the type of y
is simply Int
, not
(?x::Int) => Int
. Hence, (f 9)
returns result 9
. If you add
a type signature for y
, then y
will get type
(?x::Int) => Int
, so the occurrence of y
in the body of the
let
will see the inner binding of ?x
, so (f 9)
will return
14
.