# 7.1 Existential Types and Eliminators

## Exercise 7.1 (i)

I think that the only functions of type forall a. a -> r are the constant functions, since one of the things an a can be is () and the only thing we can do from unit is return a constant. That is, we can’t use any information from a to determine r, because a might not give us any information at all.

## Exercise 7.1 (ii)

Is this question just asking me to relay GHC’s error message? If so:

07/Existential.hs:16:36: error:
• No instance for (Show t) arising from a use of ‘show’
Possible fix:
add (Show t) to the context of the data constructor ‘HasShow’
• In the second argument of ‘(++)’, namely ‘show s’
In the expression: "HasShow " ++ show s
In an equation for ‘show’: show (HasShow s) = "HasShow " ++ show s
|
16 |   show (HasShow s) = "HasShow " ++ show s
|

see 07/Existential.hs

## Exercise 7.1 (iii)

Since the only information elimHasShow has about the a in

forall a. Show a => a -> r

is that a has a Show instance, the only functions elimHasShow can take are either constant with respect to a, or use a’s Show instance.

## 7.1.1 Dynamic Types

It’s cool how existential types, and a Typeable constraint to allow you to recover the type turns out to be equivalent to dynamic typing. Yes, it’s unityping, as per the common saying “dynamic typing is just static typing with a single type”, but I think it’s actually a little more interesting than that here: We’re bijecting the universe of Haskell types (constrained by Typeable) into the Dynamic unitype. There no actual loss of information, we’re just turning static checking into runtime checking.

I’m not really a static typing ideologue; I think dynamic typing is an important (though often abused) technique, because sometimes being able to selectively turn off static checks gives you extraordinary power (“with great power comes great responsibility”).

Interestingly, the constraint synonym

class (Monoid a, Eq a) => MonoidEq a
instance (Monoid a, Eq a) => MonoidEq a

required turning on UndecidableInstances. Not sure why.

## Scoping Information with Existentials

All the seqs in the typeclass instances are to make sure the a in ST s a is strict.

This ST trick is such a hack. Like, it’s clever to use forall scoping to teach the type-system that we don’t want to leak references, but the fact we have to add an otherwise useless parameter s to ST just feels clunky.

I wonder how this trick relates to linear types?