We often want to define functions which work across several different data types. For example, we would like arithmetic operators to work on Int, Integer and Double at the very least. We would like == to work on the majority of data types. We would like to be able to display different types in a uniform way.

To achieve this, we use interfaces, which are similar to type classes in Haskell or traits in Rust. To define an interface, we provide a collection of overloadable functions. A simple example is the Show interface, which is defined in the prelude and provides an interface for converting values to String:

interface Show a where
    show : a -> String

This generates a function of the following type (which we call a method of the Show interface):

show : Show a => a -> String

We can read this as: “under the constraint that a has an implementation of Show, take an input a and return a String.” An implementation of an interface is defined by giving definitions of the methods of the interface. For example, the Show implementation for Nat could be defined as:

Show Nat where
    show Z = "Z"
    show (S k) = "s" ++ show k
Idris> show (S (S (S Z)))
"sssZ" : String

Only one implementation of an interface can be given for a type — implementations may not overlap. Implementation declarations can themselves have constraints. To help with resolution, the arguments of an implementation must be constructors (either data or type constructors), variables or constants (i.e. you cannot give an implementation for a function). For example, to define a Show implementation for vectors, we need to know that there is a Show implementation for the element type, because we are going to use it to convert each element to a String:

Show a => Show (Vect n a) where
    show xs = "[" ++ show' xs ++ "]" where
        show' : Vect n a -> String
        show' Nil        = ""
        show' (x :: Nil) = show x
        show' (x :: xs)  = show x ++ ", " ++ show' xs

Default Definitions

The library defines an Eq interface which provides methods for comparing values for equality or inequality, with implementations for all of the built-in types:

interface Eq a where
    (==) : a -> a -> Bool
    (/=) : a -> a -> Bool

To declare an implementation for a type, we have to give definitions of all of the methods. For example, for an implementation of Eq for Nat:

Eq Nat where
    Z     == Z     = True
    (S x) == (S y) = x == y
    Z     == (S y) = False
    (S x) == Z     = False

    x /= y = not (x == y)

It is hard to imagine many cases where the /= method will be anything other than the negation of the result of applying the == method. It is therefore convenient to give a default definition for each method in the interface declaration, in terms of the other method:

interface Eq a where
    (==) : a -> a -> Bool
    (/=) : a -> a -> Bool

    x /= y = not (x == y)
    x == y = not (x /= y)

A minimal complete implementation of Eq requires either == or /= to be defined, but does not require both. If a method definition is missing, and there is a default definition for it, then the default is used instead.

Extending Interfaces

Interfaces can also be extended. A logical next step from an equality relation Eq is to define an ordering relation Ord. We can define an Ord interface which inherits methods from Eq as well as defining some of its own:

data Ordering = LT | EQ | GT
interface Eq a => Ord a where
    compare : a -> a -> Ordering

    (<) : a -> a -> Bool
    (>) : a -> a -> Bool
    (<=) : a -> a -> Bool
    (>=) : a -> a -> Bool
    max : a -> a -> a
    min : a -> a -> a

The Ord interface allows us to compare two values and determine their ordering. Only the compare method is required; every other method has a default definition. Using this we can write functions such as sort, a function which sorts a list into increasing order, provided that the element type of the list is in the Ord interface. We give the constraints on the type variables left of the fat arrow =>, and the function type to the right of the fat arrow:

sort : Ord a => List a -> List a

Functions, interfaces and implementations can have multiple constraints. Multiple constraints are written in brackets in a comma separated list, for example:

sortAndShow : (Ord a, Show a) => List a -> String
sortAndShow xs = show (sort xs)

Note: Interfaces and mutual blocks

Idris is strictly “define before use”, except in mutual blocks. In a mutual block, Idris elaborates in two passes: types on the first pass and definitions on the second. When the mutual block contains an interface declaration, it elaborates the interface header but none of the method types on the first pass, and elaborates the method types and any default definitions on the second pass.

Functors and Applicatives

So far, we have seen single parameter interfaces, where the parameter is of type Type. In general, there can be any number of parameters (even zero), and the parameters can have any type. If the type of the parameter is not Type, we need to give an explicit type declaration. For example, the Functor interface is defined in the prelude:

interface Functor (f : Type -> Type) where
    map : (m : a -> b) -> f a -> f b

A functor allows a function to be applied across a structure, for example to apply a function to every element in a List:

Functor List where
  map f []      = []
  map f (x::xs) = f x :: map f xs
Idris> map (*2) [1..10]
[2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20] : List Integer

Having defined Functor, we can define Applicative which abstracts the notion of function application:

infixl 2 <*>

interface Functor f => Applicative (f : Type -> Type) where
    pure  : a -> f a
    (<*>) : f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Monads and do-notation

The Monad interface allows us to encapsulate binding and computation, and is the basis of do-notation introduced in Section “do” notation. It extends Applicative as defined above, and is defined as follows:

interface Applicative m => Monad (m : Type -> Type) where
    (>>=)  : m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

Inside a do block, the following syntactic transformations are applied:

  • x <- v; e becomes v >>= (\x => e)
  • v; e becomes v >>= (\_ => e)
  • let x = v; e becomes let x = v in e

IO has an implementation of Monad, defined using primitive functions. We can also define an implementation for Maybe, as follows:

Monad Maybe where
    Nothing  >>= k = Nothing
    (Just x) >>= k = k x

Using this we can, for example, define a function which adds two Maybe Int, using the monad to encapsulate the error handling:

m_add : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
m_add x y = do x' <- x -- Extract value from x
               y' <- y -- Extract value from y
               pure (x' + y') -- Add them

This function will extract the values from x and y, if they are both available, or return Nothing if one or both are not (“fail fast”). Managing the Nothing cases is achieved by the >>= operator, hidden by the do notation.

*ifaces> m_add (Just 20) (Just 22)
Just 42 : Maybe Int
*ifaces> m_add (Just 20) Nothing
Nothing : Maybe Int

Sometimes we want to pattern match immediately on the result of a function in do notation. For example, let’s say we have a function readNumber which reads a number from the console, returning a value of the form Just x if the number is valid, or Nothing otherwise:

readNumber : IO (Maybe Nat)
readNumber = do
  input <- getLine
  if all isDigit (unpack input)
     then pure (Just (cast input))
     else pure Nothing

If we then use it to write a function to read two numbers, returning Nothing if neither are valid, then we would like to pattern match on the result of readNumber:

readNumbers : IO (Maybe (Nat, Nat))
readNumbers =
  do x <- readNumber
     case x of
          Nothing => pure Nothing
          Just x_ok => do y <- readNumber
                          case y of
                               Nothing => pure Nothing
                               Just y_ok => pure (Just (x_ok, y_ok))

If there’s a lot of error handling, this could get deeply nested very quickly! So instead, we can combine the bind and the pattern match in one line. For example, we could try pattern matching on values of the form Just x_ok:

readNumbers : IO (Maybe (Nat, Nat))
readNumbers =
  do Just x_ok <- readNumber
     Just y_ok <- readNumber
     pure (Just (x_ok, y_ok))

There is still a problem, however, because we’ve now omitted the case for Nothing so readNumbers is no longer total! We can add the Nothing case back as follows:

readNumbers : IO (Maybe (Nat, Nat))
readNumbers =
  do Just x_ok <- readNumber | Nothing => pure Nothing
     Just y_ok <- readNumber | Nothing => pure Nothing
     pure (Just (x_ok, y_ok))

The effect of this version of readNumbers is identical to the first (in fact, it is syntactic sugar for it and directly translated back into that form). The first part of each statement (Just x_ok <- and Just y_ok <-) gives the preferred binding - if this matches, execution will continue with the rest of the do block. The second part gives the alternative bindings, of which there may be more than one.

In many cases, using do-notation can make programs unnecessarily verbose, particularly in cases such as m_add above where the value bound is used once, immediately. In these cases, we can use a shorthand version, as follows:

m_add : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
m_add x y = pure (!x + !y)

The notation !expr means that the expression expr should be evaluated and then implicitly bound. Conceptually, we can think of ! as being a prefix function with the following type:

(!) : m a -> a

Note, however, that it is not really a function, merely syntax! In practice, a subexpression !expr will lift expr as high as possible within its current scope, bind it to a fresh name x, and replace !expr with x. Expressions are lifted depth first, left to right. In practice, !-notation allows us to program in a more direct style, while still giving a notational clue as to which expressions are monadic.

For example, the expression:

let y = 42 in f !(g !(print y) !x)

is lifted to:

let y = 42 in do y' <- print y
                 x' <- x
                 g' <- g y' x'
                 f g'

The list comprehension notation we saw in Section More Expressions is more general, and applies to anything which has an implementation of both Monad and Alternative:

interface Applicative f => Alternative (f : Type -> Type) where
    empty : f a
    (<|>) : f a -> f a -> f a

In general, a comprehension takes the form [ exp | qual1, qual2, …, qualn ] where quali can be one of:

  • A generator x <- e
  • A guard, which is an expression of type Bool
  • A let binding let x = e

To translate a comprehension [exp | qual1, qual2, …, qualn], first any qualifier qual which is a guard is translated to guard qual, using the following function:

guard : Alternative f => Bool -> f ()

Then the comprehension is converted to do notation:

do { qual1; qual2; ...; qualn; pure exp; }

Using monad comprehensions, an alternative definition for m_add would be:

m_add : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
m_add x y = [ x' + y' | x' <- x, y' <- y ]

Idiom brackets

While do notation gives an alternative meaning to sequencing, idioms give an alternative meaning to application. The notation and larger example in this section is inspired by Conor McBride and Ross Paterson’s paper “Applicative Programming with Effects” [1].

First, let us revisit m_add above. All it is really doing is applying an operator to two values extracted from Maybe Int. We could abstract out the application:

m_app : Maybe (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
m_app (Just f) (Just a) = Just (f a)
m_app _        _        = Nothing

Using this, we can write an alternative m_add which uses this alternative notion of function application, with explicit calls to m_app:

m_add' : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
m_add' x y = m_app (m_app (Just (+)) x) y

Rather than having to insert m_app everywhere there is an application, we can use idiom brackets to do the job for us. To do this, we can give Maybe an implementation of Applicative as follows, where <*> is defined in the same way as m_app above (this is defined in the Idris library):

Applicative Maybe where
    pure = Just

    (Just f) <*> (Just a) = Just (f a)
    _        <*> _        = Nothing

Using <*> we can use this implementation as follows, where a function application [| f a1 …an |] is translated into pure f <*> a1 <*> <*> an:

m_add' : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
m_add' x y = [| x + y |]

Idiom notation is commonly useful when defining evaluators. McBride and Paterson describe such an evaluator [1], for a language similar to the following:

data Expr = Var String      -- variables
          | Val Int         -- values
          | Add Expr Expr   -- addition

Evaluation will take place relative to a context mapping variables (represented as Strings) to Int values, and can possibly fail. We define a data type Eval to wrap an evaluator:

data Eval : Type -> Type where
     MkEval : (List (String, Int) -> Maybe a) -> Eval a

Wrapping the evaluator in a data type means we will be able to provide implementations of interfaces for it later. We begin by defining a function to retrieve values from the context during evaluation:

fetch : String -> Eval Int
fetch x = MkEval (\e => fetchVal e) where
    fetchVal : List (String, Int) -> Maybe Int
    fetchVal [] = Nothing
    fetchVal ((v, val) :: xs) = if (x == v)
                                  then (Just val)
                                  else (fetchVal xs)

When defining an evaluator for the language, we will be applying functions in the context of an Eval, so it is natural to give Eval an implementation of Applicative. Before Eval can have an implementation of Applicative it is necessary for Eval to have an implementation of Functor:

Functor Eval where
    map f (MkEval g) = MkEval (\e => map f (g e))

Applicative Eval where
    pure x = MkEval (\e => Just x)

    (<*>) (MkEval f) (MkEval g) = MkEval (\x => app (f x) (g x)) where
        app : Maybe (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
        app (Just fx) (Just gx) = Just (fx gx)
        app _         _         = Nothing

Evaluating an expression can now make use of the idiomatic application to handle errors:

eval : Expr -> Eval Int
eval (Var x)   = fetch x
eval (Val x)   = [| x |]
eval (Add x y) = [| eval x + eval y |]

runEval : List (String, Int) -> Expr -> Maybe Int
runEval env e = case eval e of
    MkEval envFn => envFn env

Named Implementations

It can be desirable to have multiple implementations of an interface for the same type, for example to provide alternative methods for sorting or printing values. To achieve this, implementations can be named as follows:

[myord] Ord Nat where
   compare Z (S n)     = GT
   compare (S n) Z     = LT
   compare Z Z         = EQ
   compare (S x) (S y) = compare @{myord} x y

This declares an implementation as normal, but with an explicit name, myord. The syntax compare @{myord} gives an explicit implementation to compare, otherwise it would use the default implementation for Nat. We can use this, for example, to sort a list of Nat in reverse. Given the following list:

testList : List Nat
testList = [3,4,1]

We can sort it using the default Ord implementation, then the named implementation myord as follows, at the Idris prompt:

*named_impl> show (sort testList)
"[sO, sssO, ssssO]" : String
*named_impl> show (sort @{myord} testList)
"[ssssO, sssO, sO]" : String

Determining Parameters

When an interface has more than one parameter, it can help resolution if the parameters used to find an implementation are restricted. For example:

interface Monad m => MonadState s (m : Type -> Type) | m where
  get : m s
  put : s -> m ()

In this interface, only m needs to be known to find an implementation of this interface, and s can then be determined from the implementation. This is declared with the | m after the interface declaration. We call m a determining parameter of the MonadState interface, because it is the parameter used to find an implementation.

[1](1, 2) Conor McBride and Ross Paterson. 2008. Applicative programming with effects. J. Funct. Program. 18, 1 (January 2008), 1-13. DOI=10.1017/S0956796807006326