# Inspecting Haskell

Instance Resolution

GHC's instance resolution errors can often be quite puzzling. For example, if I attempt to evaluate `mempty :: Maybe Int`

in GHCi version 8.6.4, it reports:

`• No instance for (Semigroup Int) arising from a use of ‘mempty’`

It's easy to imagine that the programmer might be very puzzled by this error – they might ask "Where in the world did Semigroup come from??". They'd be quite justified in their perplexity, considering that the error message is naming something that isn't in their code.

GHC's instance resolution is doing something like this:

It attempts to find an instance for

`Monoid (Maybe Int)`

.This gets matched with

`instance Semigroup a => Monoid (Maybe a)`

.By unifying

`Maybe Int`

with`Maybe a`

, it deduces that`a ~ Int`

.It attempts to find an instance for the superclass,

`Semigroup a`

.Since

`a ~ Int`

, it looks for`Semigroup Int`

, but doesn't find it.

The problem is that the compiler just reports the error it encounters in step 5, without providing any context for how it got there. To understand this error, you need to be able to run typeclass machinery in your head and have familiarity with the libraries involved. I think it would be great to add this contextual information to GHC, such that this variety of errors becomes more comprehensible.

## Sketch of a solution: instance resolution traces

A better error message might look something like:

```
• No instance for (Monoid (Maybe Int)) arising from a use of ‘mempty’
• Due to no instance for (Semigroup Int) arising from a superclass constraint:
Semigroup a => Monoid (Maybe a)
with
a ~ Int
```

I think this is much clearer! It starts out by talking about a constraint that comes directly from `mempty`

, and then goes on to describe the constraint that couldn't be resolved, and shows where it came from.

Let's consider a slightly more complicated example, where I evaluate `mempty :: Maybe (Product Bool)`

, where `Product`

comes from `Data.Monoid`

. For this, GHC 8.6.4 reports:

`• No instance for (Num Bool) arising from a use of ‘mempty’`

Instead, I think it would be better to report something like this:

```
• No instance for (Monoid (Maybe (Product Bool))) arising from a use of ‘mempty’
• Due to no instance for (Num Bool) arising from superclass constraints:
Num a =>
Semigroup (Product a) =>
Monoid (Maybe b)
with
a ~ Bool
b ~ Product Bool
```

The "with" clause above defines how the type variables in the instances are being instantiated. This is nice because then the instance resolution trace looks like a list of instance heads.

## Alternative: No "with" clause

Instead of including the `with`

clauses, it seems less convoluted to substitute the variables with the types:

```
• No instance for (Monoid (Maybe (Product Bool))) arising from a use of ‘mempty’
• Due to no instance for (Num Bool) arising from superclass constraints:
Num Bool =>
Semigroup (Product Bool) =>
Monoid (Maybe (Product Bool))
```

This is more compact and clear for this example, but not quite as informative. Specifically, the user can't tell which parts of the constraints come from the instance definitions, and which parts are substituted type variables. One way to differentiate this might be to use ANSI terminal color codes to show where substitution has occurred!

## Alternative: Full instance context and head

It's also worth consider having the full instance contexts and head. This way, other than the `with`

clauses, the trace would look just like the instance declaration before `=>`

.

```
• No instance for (Monoid (Maybe (Product Bool))) arising from a use of ‘mempty’
• Due to no instance for (Num Bool) arising from superclass constraints:
instance Num a => Semigroup (Product a)
with a ~ Bool
instance Semigroup b => Monoid (Maybe b)
with b ~ Product Bool
```

## Useful for more than just errors

It might also be quite useful to ask for an explanation when instances successfully resolve. Imagine if we could ask GHCi to explain such things! It might look like this:

Since instances can have multiple superclass constraints, we end up with something analogous to a call tree rather than a stack trace. In the sketch above, the nested bullets are instances required by the parent's constraints.

## Explanations for PrintfType

This could be very useful for understanding clever uses of typeclasses. For example, the `Text.Printf`

module in `base`

provides a polyvariadic `printf`

function. It can take a variable number of arguments at a variety of different types:

```
> printf "%d\n" 1
1
> printf "%d %d\n" 1 2
1 2
> printf "%d %d %s\n" 1 2 "wow!"
1 2 wow!
> :t printf
printf :: PrintfType r => String -> r
```

`:explain`

could be used to gain some insight into how this works:

```
> :explain PrintfType (Integer -> IO ())
• PrintfType (Integer -> IO ())
• PrintfArg Integer
• PrintfType (IO ())
> :explain PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> IO ())
• PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> IO ())
• PrintfArg Integer
• PrintfType (Integer -> IO ())
• PrintfArg Integer
• PrintfType (IO ())
> :explain PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
• PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
• PrintfArg Integer
• PrintfType (Integer -> String -> IO ())
• PrintfArg Integer
• PrintfType (String -> IO ())
• PrintfArg [Char]
• IsChar Char
• PrintfType (IO ())
```

## Alternative: constraint entailment tree

This could also be written using the constraint entailment operator, `=>`

, causing the tree to be in the opposite order:

```
> :explain PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
( ( ( PrintfType (IO ())
, ( IsChar Char
) => PrintfArg [Char]
) => PrintfType (String -> IO ())
, PrintfArg Integer
) => PrintfType (Integer -> String -> IO ())
, PrintfArg Integer
) => PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
```

This reads a bit strange, but I think it is sensible. I haven't thought through how this would interact with `QuantifiedConstraints`

.

In order to make this a fair comparison with the prior example, I flipped the constraint order. Since the instance is actually `(PrintfArg a, PrintfType r) => PrintfType (a -> r)`

, a tree that followed the order in this definition would look like:

```
> :explain PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
( PrintfArg Integer
, ( PrintfArg Integer
, ( ( IsChar Char
) => PrintfArg [Char]
) => PrintfType (String -> IO ())
) => PrintfType (Integer -> String -> IO ())
) => PrintfType (Integer -> Integer -> String -> IO ())
```

## An old prototype: explain-instance

I've wanted a solution to this for a *long* time. 5 years ago, I wrote a prototype, in the form of a Template Haskell library which takes a rather wild approach. It would be much better to implement it directly in GHC, but at the time I was much more familiar with Template Haskell, and the perverse cleverness of the approach has some appeal.

With a set of extensions enabled, the following code can be run,

resulting in the following output:

The way this works is by generating class and instance declarations that match the existing declarations. Even for this small example, the output of `-ddump-splices`

can get quite large. Here's what the relevant portion of the generated code looks like:

```
main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn (displayInst (resolveMonoid_ (Proxy :: Proxy (Maybe Int))))
class Semigroup_ a where
resolveSemigroup :: Proxy a -> Inst
class Semigroup_ a => Monoid_ a where
resolveMonoid :: Proxy a -> Inst
instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} Typeable a => Semigroup_ a where
resolveSemigroup _ = Inst
{ instHead = "ERROR instance Semigroup a"
, instTypes = [("a", typeRep (Proxy :: Proxy a))]
, instConstraints = []
}
instance (Semigroup_ a, Typeable a) => Monoid_ (Maybe a) where
resolveMonoid _ = Inst
{ instHead = "instance Semigroup a => Monoid (Maybe a)"
, instTypes = Inst [("a", typeRep (Proxy :: Proxy a))]
, instConstraints = [resolveSemigroup (Proxy :: Proxy a)]
}
```

So, the idea is to have copies of all the instances, but with only one method, which reifies the tree of instance resolution as a value.

## More elaborate example of explain-instance

Once again with a bunch of extensions, the following code can be run,

```
import ExplainInstance
import Text.Printf
$(explainInstance [t| PrintfType (Int -> Int -> String) |])
```

resulting in the following output:

```
instance (PrintfArg a, PrintfType r) => PrintfType (a -> r)
with a ~ Int
r ~ (Int -> [Char])
instance PrintfArg Int
instance (PrintfArg a, PrintfType r) => PrintfType (a -> r)
with a ~ Int
r ~ [Char]
instance PrintfArg Int
instance IsChar c => PrintfType ([c])
with c ~ Char
instance IsChar Char
```

See the repository for more examples.

## Where to from here?

My purpose in writing this post is to dust off a very old back-burner project that I think has merit, in the hopes that it might be inspiring or perhaps interesting. So, as much as it appeals to me to champion this idea and see it to fruition, I don't see that as being practical for me to do any time soon.

So, if you find these ideas or some variant inspiring, please do run with it and make it happen! A natural next step might be to write up a GHC proposal or GHC ticket about this, seeking some consensus about the details.

## Discussion / Related Links

GHC ticket proposing :elab, a GHCi command similar to

`:explain`

, proposed by IcelandJack (Baldur Blöndal).A 2016 Haskell-cafe post by Tom Ellis, suggesting a similar change to the error messages.

A 2016 Haskell-cafe post by me, describing explain-instance. I forgot I'd sent this email, but was reminded by Tom Ellis in the Reddit discussion. Particularly surprising is that this email also chose

`:explain`

for the GHCi command.