Default superclass instances
A matter of much consternation, here is a proposal to allow type class declarations to include default instance declarations for their superclasses. Moreover, subclass instance declarations should be able to override the method definitions in their default superclass instances. It's based on Jón Fairbairn's proposal, but it has a more explicit 'off switch' and the policy on cornercases is rejection. Credit is due also to the superclass defaults proposal, class system extension proposal and its ancestors, in particular, John Meacham's class alias proposal.
We may distinguish two uses of superclasses (not necessarily exclusive).
 A class can widen its superclass, extending its interface with new functionality (e.g., adding an inverse to a monoid to obtain a group  inversion seldom provides an implementation of composition). The subclass methods provide extra functionality, but do not induce a standard implementation of the superclass. Num provides arithmetic operations, widening Eq, but does not induce an implementation of
(==)
.  A class can deepen its superclass, providing methods at least as expressive, admitting a default implementation of superclass functionality (e.g., the
compare
function from an Ord instance can be used to give an Eq instance;traverse
from Traversable f can be instantiated tofoldMapDefault
for Foldable f andfmapDefault
for Functor f).
(SLPJ I don't understand this distinction clearly.)
This proposal concerns the latter phenomenon, which is currently such a nuisance that Functor and Applicative are not superclasses of Monad. Nobody wants to be forced to write Functor and Applicative instances, just to access the Monad interface. Moreover, any proposal to refine the library by splitting a type class into depthlayers is (rightly!) greeted with howls of protest as an absence of superclass instances gives rise to breakage of the existing codebase.
Default superclass instances are implemented in the Strathclyde Haskell Enhancement. The crucial property which drives the feature is that method names uniquely identify the classes to which they belong, so that methods defined in a subclass instance can be distributed to the appropriate generated superclass instance. They should enable some tidying of the library, with relatively few tears. Moreover, they should allow us to deepen type class hierarchies as we learn. Retaining backward compatibility in relative silence is the motivation for an optin default.
Design goals
The major design goal is this:
Design goal 1: a class C can be refactored into a class C with a superclass S, without disturbing any clients
The difficulty is that if you start with
class C a where
f :: ...
g :: ...
and lots of clients write instances of C
and functions that use it:
instance C ClientType
f = ...blah...
g = ...blah...
foo :: C a => ...
foo = ...
Now you want to refactor C
thus:
class S a where
f :: ...
class S a => C a where
g :: ...
Design goal 1 is that this change should not force clients to change their code. Haskell 98 does not satisfy this goal. In Haskell 98 the client function foo
is fine unmodified, but the instance declaration would have to be split into two.
Design goal 2: write implementations of subclasses that imply their superclass implementations

Example 1: once you say
instance Ord (T a) where compare = ...
then the implementation of
(==)
inEq
is obvious. So, in the class decl forOrd
we'd like to say (modulo syntax, see below)class Eq a => Ord a where ... instance Eq a where (==) a b = case compare a b of { EQ > True; _ > False }

Example 2: once you say
instance Monad M
, the instances forFunctor M
andApplicative M
can be derivived from the definitions of(>>=)
andreturn
. And similarly if you sayinstance Applicative M
, theFunctor M
instance is derivable. 
Example 3: once you say
instance Traversable T
you can deriveFoldable
andFunctor
.
Obvious question: if something is both Foldable
and Applicative
, which Functor
instance do you get? Answer: the programmer must be able to control this (see "the optout mechanism" below).
The proposal
Concretely, the proposal is as follows.
Default superclass instances
First, we allow a class declaration to include a default superclass instance declaration for some, none, or all of its superclass constraints (transitively). We say that superclasses (transitively) with default implementations are intrinsic superclasses. Example:
class Functor f => Applicative f where
return :: x > f x
(<*>) :: f (s > t) > f s > f t
(>>) :: f s > f t > f t
fs >> ft = return (flip const) <*> fs <*> ft
instance Functor f where
fmap = (<*>) . return
Note the instance
declaration nested inside the class
declaration. This is the default superclass instance declaration, and Functor
thereby becomes an intrinsic superclass of Applicative
. Moreover, note that the definition of fmap
uses the <*>
operation of Applicative
; that is the whole point!
Here is another example:
class Applicative f => Monad f where
(>>=) :: f a > (a > f b) > f b
instance Applicative f where
ff <*> fs = ff >>= \ f > fs >>= \ s > return (f s)
Here, Applicative
is an intrinsic superclass of Monad
.
We might also want to give a different implementation of fmap
for monads than the
one generated by the Applicative
class declaration:
class Applicative f => Monad f where
(>>=) :: f a > (a > f b) > f b
instance Applicative f where
hiding instance Functor
ff <*> fs = ff >>= \ f > fs >>= \ s > return (f s)
instance Functor f where
fmap f x = x >>= \y > return (f y)
(In fact this fmap
would, after optimisation of a particular instance and if enough inlining too place, generate the same code, but that might not always be the case.)
Instance declarations
A default superclass instance in a class declaration for class C has an effect on the instance declarations for C.
Specifically:

An instance declaration
instance Q => C ty where ...defs...
for class C generates an extra instance declaration
instance Q => Si ty where ....
for each intrinsic superclass Si of C

The method definitions in
...defs...
are distributed to the appropriate instance declaration, according to which class the method belongs to. 
Any methods that are not specified explicitly are "filled in" from the default definition given in the default superclass instance. (If there is no default definition, then a warning is produced, and a definition that calls
error
is used instead.)
For example, assume the class declaration for Monad
above. Then
this instance declaration:
instance Monad m where
(>>=) = ...blah...
(<*) = ...bleh...
would generate an extra instance declaration for the instrinsic superclass Applicative
,
with the methods distributed appropriately:
instance Monad m where
(>>=) = ...blah...
instance Applicative m where
(<*) = ...bleh...  Programmer specified
ff <*> fs = ff >>= \ f > fs >>= \ s > return (f s)
 From the default superclass instance
We call these extra instance declarations an intrinsic instance declaration. (The term "derived instance" is already taken!)
This process is recursive. Since Functor
is an intrinsic superclass of Applicative
,
the intrinsic instance for Applicative
recursively
generates an intrinsic instance for Functor
:
instance Functor m where
fmap = (<*>) . return  From default superclass instance
The optout mechanism
Just because you can make default instances, they are not always the instances you want. A key example is
instance Monad m => Monad (ReaderT r m) where ...
which would give us by default the intrinsic instance
instance Monad m => Applicative (ReaderT r m) where ...
thus preventing us adding the more general
instance Applicative m => Applicative (ReaderT r m) where ...
To inhibit the generation of an intrinsic instance declaration, one can use a
hiding
clause in the instance declaration:
instance Sub x where
...
hiding instance Super
which acts to prevent the generation of instances for Super and all of Super's intrinsic superclasses in turn. For example: write
instance Monad m => Monad (ReaderT r m) where ...
return x = ...
ba >>= bf = ...
hiding instance Applicative
The hiding
clause applies to all the intrinsic instances generated
from an instance declaration. For example, we might write
instance Monad T where
return x = ...
ba >>= bf = ...
hiding instance Functor
Note that Functor
is only an indirect intrinsic superclass of Monad
, via Applicative
.
So the above instance would generate an intrinsic instance for Applicative
but not for Functor
.
See below for more about the optout mechanism.
Details
Each default superclass instance declaration in a class
declaration must be for
a distinct class. So one of these is OK and the other is not:
 This is ILLEGAL
class (Tweedle dum, Tweedle dee) => Rum dum dee where
instance Tweedle dum where ...
instance Tweedle dee where ...
 But this is OK
class (Tweedle dum, Tweedle dee) => Rum dum dee where
instance Tweedle dee where ...
By requiring that intrinsic superclasses be classdistinct, we ensure that the distribution of methods to spawned instances is unambiguous.
Flags
The declaration of a class with a default superclass instance would require a language extension flag; but the instances of such a class would not. Again Design Goal 1 means that we want to impact client code as little as possible.
Possible variations
The design of the optout mechanism
Jón's proposal had a more subtle optout policy, namely that an intrinsic superclass can be silently preempted by an instance for the superclass from a prior or the present module. For example, instead of
instance Functor T where ...
instance Monad T where
return x = ...
ba >>= bf = ...
hiding instance Functor
you would simply say
instance Functor T where ...
instance Monad T where
return x = ...
ba >>= bf = ...
Of course, the instance of Functor T
might be in a different module entirely.
Note that to declare an
instance of the subclass, one must produce an instance of the
superclass by the same module at the latest.
This quiet exclusion
policy is not enough to handle the case of multiple candidate
intrinsic instances arising from multiple intrinsic superclasses (e.g.,
Traversable
and Monad
giving competing Functor
instances), so some
explicit hiding
form is required even under the "silent preemption" plan.
The question for us, then, is what should happen if an intrinsic superclass not explicitly hidden were to clash with an explicit instance from the same or a prior module. We could

Reject this as a duplicate instance declaration, which indeed it is. We acknowledge that it creates an issue with legacy code  that is, it contradicts Design Goal 1  precisely because there are plenty of places where we have written the full stack of instances, often just doing the obvious default thing.

Allow the explicit to supersede the intrinsic default, but issue a warning suggesting to either remove the explicit instance or add an explicit optout.

Allow the explicit to supersede the intrinsic default silently. This fits with Design Goal 1, but risks perplexity: if I make use of some cool package which introduces some
Foo :: * > *
, I might notice thatFoo
is a monad and add aMonad Foo
instance in my own code, expecting theApplicative Foo
instance to be generated in concert; to my horror, I find my code has subtle bugs because the package introduced a different, nonmonadic,Applicative Foo
instance which I'm accidentally using instead.
There is considerable support in the email discussion thread for Option 2 or 3, on the grounds that Option 1 contradicts Design Goal 1.
Perhaps Option 2 is the pragmatic choice.
Opting in rather than out
The [ http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Superclass_defaults superclass default proposal] deals with the question of optouts by intead requiring you to opt in. A Monad
instance would look like
instance (Functor T, Applicative T, Monad T) where
(>>=) = ...blah...
return = ...bleh...
where we explicitly ask the compiler to generate an instance of Applicative T
and Functor T
. The disadvantage is that you have to know to do so, which contradicts Design Goal 1.
Multiheaded instance declarations
While we're about it, to allow multiheaded instance declarations for classdisjoint conjunctions, with the same semantics for constraint duplication and method distribution as for the defaults, so
instance S => (C x, C' x) where
methodOfC = ...
methodOfC' = ...
is short for
instance S => C x where
methodOfC = ...
instance S => C' x where
methodOfC' = ...
This proposal fits handily with the kind Fact proposal, which allows multiple constraints to be abbreviated by ordinary type synonyms. So we might write
type Stringy x = (Read x, Show s)
instance Stringy Int where
read = ...
show = ...
The common factor is that one instance declaration is expanded into several with the method definitions distributed appropriately among them.
Feature interactions
What about interaction with other features?

deriving
. If you sayderiving(Ord)
do you get theEq
by default? What if you want to specify a manual instance forEq
? Ditto standalone deriving. (pigworker We use the same logic as if the derived instances were written by hand in the same module as the datatype (or standalone declaration). If you sayderiving(Ord)
, you get the default. If you sayderiving(Ord, Eq)
under option 2, the derivedEq
preempts the default one. But we do then need to be able to sayderiving (Ord hiding Eq)
to allow explicit optout if another default superclass offers anEq
which we prefer.)  Generic default methods. (pigworker Default methods in default superclass instances override class default methods and are overridden by specific implementations in subclass instances. So I can define
Applicative
to have a default class method<*>
which fails with a specific message; I can makeclass Monad
give a default implementation(<*>) = ap
; I can give a specificinstance Monad
which overrides<*>
, perhaps for improved efficiency.)  Associated types, and default type synonyms. Presumably they obey the same rules as for default methods. (pigworker Yes. You can put any declaration into a default superclass instance, and the same sorts of definitions as you can with default methods in class declarations. Notably,
data instance
s are forbidden, because they could result in multiple declarations of the same constructor. (Must get around to an 'overloaded constructors' proposal.))
Migration issues
Adopting this proposal raises the question of which default superclass instances should be added to the existing library and hence how much damage we might do. We do not have to look too far to find issues to consider.
Splitting a class by adding a new superclass
Had this proposal been in force at the time, Applicative
would have been introduced as an intrinsic superclass of Monad
. The return
method would have been moved to Applicative
, pure
would not exist, and <*>
for Monad
s would be ap
by default. Bold claim: no code would have broken, but some Applicative
instances would have been generated with overly tight constraints (requiring Monad
where Applicative
would do). With no prior Applicative
instances to conflict with the default ones, we should simply have had a different interpretation of the existing Monad
instances.
Giving a superclass a default instance in one or more of its existing subclasses
Currently, Applicative
is a subclass of Functor
. We can (and probably should) give a default implementation of Functor
with fmap = (<*>) . pure
. As it is currently forbidden to give an Applicative
instance in the absence of a Functor
instance, we should expect (given Option 2) to be sprayed with warnings that default Functor
instances are being preempted, but (bold claim) we should find that all code still compiles, with no default superclass instances being generated. By the same token, if we also give a default Functor
instance for Traversable
, we shall similarly find all such instance generations preempted. Correspondingly, wherever some functor is both Applicative
and Traversable
, there will be no need to make an explicit hiding
declaration.
Making an existing class a new but intrinsic superclass of another existing class
Currently, Applicative
is not a superclass of Monad
, but it should be (in the manner described above). What will happen to existing code (under Option 2)? Only some instances of Applicative
will be duplicates, and those will all be orphans. When a Monad
instance is declared, any existing Applicative
will preempt the default, but certainly an Applicative
instance will be in scope, generated or not. If, in a module further downstream, an Applicative
instance (necessarily orphan) is added, there must have been no prior Applicative
instance, so the Monad
instance will now generate one which the orphan Applicative
duplicates. There is no perfect solution to this problem. We could reduce the damage but increase the potential perplexity by allowing default generated instances in earlier modules to preempt explicit instances in later modules, accompanied by a noisy warning. Even then, some code would fail to compile if the preempting default instance were to be more tightly constrained than the preempted one (quite apart from the fact that it might do something completely different).
Is this only a legacy issue? This proposal makes oughttobeasuperclass relationships cheap, so we might hope that, in future, we would have to be slow on the uptake to be creating classes which could have a useful super/subclass relationship but somehow do not. The danger of code damage we identify here might thus be better tackled by a localized and transitional strategy.
Applications
If you want superclass instances, add yourself below with a quick sketch of what your application is
For years, I have been pretending that Monads are not Functors. When applicative functors showed up, I could accept them as functors, but my internal contradictions prevented me to accept them as monads. This is a cry for help!
 Haskell 98