# Faking Local Instances with `unsafeCoerce Dict`

18 March 2022
When you first learned about Haskellâs `Monoid`

typeclass,
you were probably quite surprised to find out that there is no instance
for `Monoid Int`

in `base`

.

After all, `(+)`

is an associative binary operation, and
`0`

acts as a unit element.

```
instance Semigroup Int where
<>) = (+)
(instance Monoid Int where
mempty = 0
```

The reason, as you will have learned is that this is not the
*only* possible instance for `Monoid Int`

.

The following instance is, in fact, just as valid.

```
instance Semigroup Int where
<>) = (*)
(instance Monoid Int where
mempty = 1
```

You might also be aware, that the way to work around this is to
declare newtype wrappers and to wrap and unwrap all `Int`

s
every time the Monoid instance is needed.

```
newtype Sum a = Sum {getSum :: a}
newtype Product a = Product {getProduct :: a}
instance (Num a) => Semigroup (Sum a) where
Sum x) <> (Sum y) = Sum (x + y)
(instance (Num a) => Monoid (Sum a) where
mempty = Sum 0
instance (Num a) => Semigroup (Product a) where
Product x) <> (Product y) = Product (x * y)
(instance (Num a) => Monoid (Product a) where
mempty = Product 1
> getSum $ foldMap Sum [1..10] <> Sum 5
Î»60
```

There is a bit of boilerplate involved in defining the newtypes and
corresponding instances, but what is hard to swallow is that quite a bit
of boilerplate has to be included at *every single use site*.^{1}

If Haskell had local instances, this would not be an issue since we
would not be forced to commit to a single instance and could just tell
the compiler the instance we want without having to constantly wrap and
unwrap everything.^{2}

## Introducing `Dict`

GHC uses a technique called *dictionary passing* to compile
typeclass dictionaries. This means that in Core (GHCâs intermediate
language), `=>`

is turned into `->`

. In
other words, *constraints become arguments*, called
*dictionaries*.

Why is that useful to know? Well, while there is no way to directly
access or construct these dictionaries, we *can* reify them with
`Dict`

.

```
data Dict (c :: Constraint) where
Dict :: c => Dict c
```

Because the constraint `c`

appears in the type signature
of the `Dict`

constructor, the constructor stores the
corresponding dictionary, and whenever it is scrutinized in a pattern
match, the constraint is made available.

Unfortunately, even with `Dict`

, there is no way to
construct a dictionary without defining an instance first.

The only way to construct a âlocalâ instance then is to define an
instance for a newtype wrapper, but if we create a Dict from that
instance, we cannot use the newtype `Dict`

for our original
type, because `Dict (Monoid Int)`

and
`Dict (Monoid (Sum Int))`

are entirely separate types to the
typechecker.

We hit quite the wall there. We know we could use the Dict for our
newtype, and we know it would be safe^{3} because newtypes are
erased at runtime, but the typechecker doesnât allow us to use a newtype
Dict to get an instance for the original type.

If there was just some way to bypass the typecheckerâŠ

## I solemnly swear I am up to no good

Luckily for us: there is!

`unsafeCoerce :: forall a b. a -> b`

lets us bypass the
typechecker by treating a value of *any* (lifted) type as a value
of *any other* (lifted) type.

This is probably one of the most dangerous, if not *the* most
dangerous function in GHCâs arsenal. If youâre not careful, you can
easily end up with segmentation faults.

We know what weâre doing though, so letâs try it out!

```
monoidSumDict :: Dict (Monoid (Sum Int))
= Dict
monoidSumDict
monoidIntDict :: Dict (Monoid Int)
= unsafeCoerce monoidSumDict
monoidIntDict
-- If we didn't include the type signature, GHC would be confused about the type of number we're using
> case monoidIntDict of Dict -> fold [1..10] <> (5 :: Int)
Î»60
```

Perfect! We just created an instance of `Monoid Int`

, that
only exists if we pattern match on `monoidIntDict`

. This
sounds a lot like local instances to me.

## Letâs simplify this

What we have so far is already pretty cool, but having to write out a pattern match every time is a bit inconvenient.

Fortunately, we can easily factor out the pattern match by turning it into a function.

```
withDict :: Dict c -> (c => a) -> a
= case d of Dict -> x
withDict d x
> withDict monoidIntDict $ fold [1..10] <> (5 :: Int)
Î»60
```

That `(c => a)`

argument might look a bit strange, but
this is exactly what weâre trying to do: Take a value or function with a
constraint and remove that constraint by inserting the instance stored
in our `Dict`

.

We can do even better. The only way to construct one of our âlocalâ
Dicts is to create a `Dict`

for a newtype and cast that to a
`Dict`

for the original type using `unsafeCoerce`

,
but users of our library really shouldnât have to write their own
`Dict`

definition, let alone use
`unsafeCoerce`

.

```
withLocal :: forall c1 c2 d. c1 => (c2 => d) -> d
= case c2Dict of Dict -> x
withLocal x where
c1Dict :: Dict c1
= Dict
c1Dict c2Dict :: Dict c2
= unsafeCoerce c1Dict
c2Dict
> withLocal @(Monoid (Sum Int)) @(Monoid Int) $ fold [1..10] <> (5 :: Int)
Î»60
```

Now, all that users have to do is supply the right type applications
and `withLocal`

is going to do everything else for them.
Nice!

## Hey Google, whatâs a segfault?

```
> withLocal @(Eq Bool) @(Num Int) $ (-1 :: Int) + 2
Î»: Job 1, 'ghci unsafeCoerceDict.hs' terminated by signal SIGSEGV (Address boundary error) fish
```

Oh no^{4}âŠ

We just used `unsafeCoerce`

to cast a
`Dict (Eq Bool)`

to a `Dict (Num Int)`

. We really
shouldnât be able to do this.

The issue here is that `withLocal`

places no constraints
on the â well â *constraints* (`c1`

and
`c2`

). In reality, we need both constraints to contain the
same typeclass and to only differ in the *argument* to that
class.

Letâs do that.

```
withLocal :: forall c a b d. (c a) => (c b => d) -> d
= case cbDict of Dict -> x
withLocal x where
caDict :: Dict (c a)
= Dict
caDict cbDict :: Dict (c b)
= unsafeCoerce caDict cbDict
```

Note that we did not change anything about the implementation. We just constrained its type signature.

Unfortunately, `withLocal`

can still segfault because
there are still no constraints on `a`

and `b`

. We
could, for instance, still try to convert a `Monoid String`

to a `Monoid Int`

.

## Why did this even work before?

The reason why this function is safe on `Sum Int`

and
`Int`

is that `Sum Int`

is just a newtype wrapper
over `Int`

, and newtypes are completely erased at runtime. So
a function of type `Sum Int -> b`

really becomes a
function of type `Int -> b`

at runtime.

Thus we can safely^{5} cast it to `Int -> b`

using `unsafeCoerce`

.

`String`

and `Int`

donât have the same runtime
representation, so we cannot safely cast
`Dict (Monoid String)`

to `Dict (Monoid Int)`

.

Fortunately for us, Haskell does actually provide a way to constrain
a function to types with the same runtime representation:
`Coercible`

!

If we adjust our function to include a `Coercible a b`

constraint, we finally end up with a safe implementation that doesnât
segfault!

```
withLocal :: forall c a b d. (c a, Coercible a b) => (c b => d) -> d
= case cbDict of Dict -> x
withLocal x where
caDict :: Dict (c a)
= Dict
caDict cbDict :: Dict (c b)
= unsafeCoerce caDict
cbDict
> withLocal @Monoid @(Sum Int) @Int $ fold [1..10] <> (5 :: Int)
Î»60
```

Note that we still had to use `unsafeCoerce`

instead of
`coerce`

. Just because `a`

can be coerced to
`b`

, doesnât mean GHC will allow you to cast
`Dict (c a)`

to `Dict (c b)`

.

## Expanding

What we have so far is already pretty cool, but we can do even better.

So far, all our local instances were limited by us having to write an instance for a newtype wrapper and so our instances could not include entirely arbitrary functions.

We couldnât, for example, declare a local function depending on a local variable and use that in an instance, because instances have to be written at the top level and therefore canât include local variables.

Fortunately, by selling a bit more of our soul to the type checker, we can work around this limitation!

At runtime, dictionaries (not `Dict`

s) are really just
regular data types, so there is no reason, why we shouldnât be able to
fake them with `unsafeCoerce`

.

Note, that `Dict`

actually stores the runtime dictionary
as a lifted field, so if we want to coerce to `Dict`

, we need
to add a layer of indirection.

`data FakeDict a = FakeDict a`

Now for the runtime dictionary, letâs look at the definition of the
`Eq`

typeclass.

```
class Eq a where
(==) :: a -> a -> Bool
(/=) :: a -> a -> Bool
{-# MINIMAL (==) | (/=) #-}
```

`Eq`

has two methods `(==)`

and
`(/=)`

, so our datatype also has to have two fields with
matching types.

```
data EqDict a = EqDict {
_eq :: a -> a -> Bool
_neq :: a -> a -> Bool
, }
```

Now we need a function to make `unsafeCoere`

a little less
unsafe.

```
withFakeDictUnsafe :: forall c d a. d -> (c => a) -> a
= case unsafeCoerce (FakeDict d) :: Dict c of
withFakeDictUnsafe d x Dict -> x
```

This already works for simple classes like `Eq`

, but right
now we canât handle classes with superclasses like `Monoid`

,
because we have no way of storing the superclass dictionary in our fake
dictionary.

In order to include the dictionary, we have to expand our
`MonoidDict`

to a GADT.

```
data MonoidDict a where
MonoidDict :: Semigroup a => {
_mempty :: a
_mappend :: a -> a -> a
, _mconcat :: [a] -> a
,-> MonoidDict a }
```

AndâŠ thatâs it!

We can now actually write useful functions that we couldnât just emulate by wrapping everything in a newtype.

As an example, letâs consider a function that (locally) implements a
`Monoid`

instance for a type, which only implements
`Semigroup`

, based on a provided default argument for
`mempty`

.

```
withSemigroupAsMonoid :: forall a b. Semigroup a => a -> (Monoid a => b) -> b
= withFakeDictUnsafe @(Monoid a) (MonoidDict {
withSemigroupAsMonoid d = d
_mempty = (<>)
, _mappend = foldr (<>) d
, _mconcat })
```

We couldnât use a newtype instance, since
`withSemigroupAsMonoid`

uses the function parameter
`d`

in its instance definition.

## Template Haskell

Writing all these Dict types by hand is not just annoying, but also quite dangerous because they are not automatically kept in sync with the corresponding type classes, so if one of those changes and we forget to update the Dict, the types are not actually compatible anymore.

We can use some TemplateHaskell to automate the process and (hopefully) avoid further segfaults.

My experience with TemplateHaskell is pretty limited, so Iâm not
going to pretend like this is a great implementation.^{6}

```
makeDict :: Name -> Q [Dec]
= do
makeDict cname >>= \case -- (1)
reify cname ClassI cdec is -> case cdec of
ClassD cxt cname tvs _ meths -> pure [
Nothing [ForallC (map (addSpecificity SpecifiedSpec) tvs) cxt
dataCon [] dname tvs $ RecGadtC [dname] (map methodToVarBangType meths) appliedFakeType] [] -- (2)
]where
= case (meths, cxt) of
dataCon -> \cxt name tvs k [cs] ds -> NewtypeD cxt name tvs k cs ds -- (4)
([_], []) -> DataD
_ = mkName $ nameBase cname <> "Dict" -- (3)
dname
SigD n t) = (mkName ("_" <> nameBase n), Bang SourceNoUnpack NoSourceStrictness, t)
methodToVarBangType (
= foldl AppT (ConT dname) (map (VarT . tyVarName) tvs)
appliedFakeType = foldl AppT (ConT cname) (map (VarT . tyVarName) tvs)
appliedClassType
PlainTV n _) = PlainTV n s
addSpecificity s (KindedTV n _ k) = KindedTV n s k
addSpecificity s (
PlainTV n _) = n
tyVarName (KindedTV n _ _) = n
tyVarName (-> fail $ "Not a class: " <> show cname
_ -> fail $ "Not a class: " <> show cname _
```

The important steps are these:

- We get the class definition using
`reify`

- We can use that definition to construct a record GADT
(
`RecGadtC`

) with one field for every class method. - The new GADT is called
`<ClassName>Dict`

. - If there is only a single method and no superclass, we construct a
newtype instead. Note that this step is not just an optimization, but
absolutely crucial, since a
`data`

constructor has one more level of indirection than a newtype, and confusing the two would lead to a segfault.

We actually get another benefit from generating our instance. Since
we know, that using `withFakeDictUnsafe`

with our generated
`MonoidDict`

is safe, we can use a (non-exported) type class
and a function `withFakeDict`

to constrain arguments to
*safe* (i.e.Â generated) dictionaries.

```
class FakeDictFor (c :: Constraint) (d :: Type) | d -> c
withFakeDict :: forall d c a. FakeDictFor c d => d -> (c => a) -> a
= withFakeDictUnsafe
withFakeDict
makeDict :: Name -> Q [Dec]
= do
makeDict cname {- ... -}
[d|instance FakeDictFor $(pure appliedClassType) $(pure appliedFakeType)|]{- ... -}
```

## Incoherence

Unfortunately, both `withLocal`

and
`withFakeDictUnsafe`

have a pretty serious flaw. Usually,
whenever we use a typeclass method in Haskell, there are essentially two
possibilities: either *no* instance exists or there is
*exactly one* and the compiler picks that one. This is called
*Coherence* and is also the reason why all in-scope typeclass
instances are always exported from a module.

The issue with our functions is that in case there is already an instance for the typeclass, they introduce a second instance and break the compilerâs Coherence assumption.

As an example, letâs say we want to introduce a local instance for
`Show Int`

. If we do this, using `withLocal`

^{7}, which instance is the compiler
going to pick? Letâs find out!

```
newtype FancyShow a = FancyShow a
instance Show a => Show (FancyShow a) where
show (FancyShow x) = "â" <> show x <> "â"
= withLocal @Show @(FancyShow Int) @Int $ print (5 :: Int) main
```

```
$ ghc unsafeCoerceDict.hs && ./unsafeCoerceDict
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( unsafeCoerceDict.hs, unsafeCoerceDict.o )
Linking unsafeCoerceDict ...
â5â
```

Nice! It seems like we can override instances using
`withLocal`

. Letâs try that with optimizations

```
$ ghc -O unsafeCoerceDict.hs && ./unsafeCoerceDict
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( unsafeCoerceDict.hs, unsafeCoerceDict.o )
Linking unsafeCoerceDict ...
5
```

Oh noâŠ optimizations can change the semantics of our program by picking the original instance, that we tried to override. We really donât want that.

To make matters worse, there is no way to prevent incoherent usage
without having to include Template Haskell at call sites, since there is
no way to write a type like
`Not (Eq a) => (Eq a => b) -> b`

.

Itâs not that bad though. As long as we make sure to never try to override existing instances, we are safe.

## ImplicitParams

`withFakeDict`

might remind you of a different Haskell
feature, namely `ImplicitParams`

. And indeed, we can directly
interoperate with `ImplicitParams`

using
`withFakeDict`

.

An implicit parameter constraint like

```
f :: (?x :: Int) => Int
= ?x + 1 f
```

is really just syntactic sugar for

```
f :: (IP "x" Int) => Int
= ip @"x" + 1 f
```

where IP is a regular type class defined in
`GHC.Classes`

.

Whatâs really cool about this is that we can actually define an
`IP`

constraint using `withFakeDict`

.

So instead of

`let ?x = 5 in f`

we can write

`@(IPDict "x" Int) (IPDict {_ip = 5}) f withFakeDict `

and get the exact same behavior!

This means that `withFakeDict`

is strictly more powerful
than ImplicitParams, but it also shares ImplicitParamsâ somewhat
famous issues.

## Configurable trace

`Debug.Trace.trace`

can be a very useful function for
quick debugging. Want to know what this intermediate expression
evaluates to? Just write it to stderr using `trace`

. Want to
know what values this function is called with? You can use trace for
that.

```
f :: A -> B
| trace ("x = " <> show x) False = error "unreachable"
f x = ... f x
```

Unfortunately, `trace`

is not really suited for slightly
more permanent tracing, since there is no way to turn it off or to
change the target it writes to.

If we wanted to improve trace, we would have to somehow pass a
configuration without *actually* passing it manually to every
single function. Sounds a lot like type classes to me!

Letâs try that. We should also probably use `Text`

instead
of `String`

, while weâre at it.

```
class Trace where
trace :: Text -> a -> a
```

To make filtering easier, we should probably also accept some kind of trace level. We could just accept an integer, but parameterizing our class over the type of the trace level is more general.

```
class Trace lvl where
trace :: lvl -> Text -> a -> a
```

Cool. Functions that want to perform logging now need an additional
`Trace lvl`

constraint, that supplies the actual
implementation.

How do we pick the implementation though? If youâve paid attention so
far, the answer should be obvious: We construct a fake dictionary using
`withFakeDict`

.

```
class Trace lvl where
trace :: lvl -> Text -> a -> a
'Trace
makeDict '
runTraceStderr :: (Trace lvl => a) -> a
= withFakeDict (TraceDict {
runTraceStderr = Debug.Trace.trace
_trace _
})
ignoreTrace :: (Trace lvl => a) -> a
= withFakeDict (TraceDict {
ignoreTrace = x
_trace _ _ x })
```

One issue that might still come up is that someone could
theoretically define a top-level instance of `Trace lvl`

,
which would introduce incoherence and completely break our system. To
prevent that, we can hide the actual implementation in a class
`_Trace`

, that we donât actually export. We can then define a
type synonym `Trace`

that we *do* export. This way,
users of our library can still reference Trace through our type synonym,
but cannot define top-level instances since instances cannot be defined
for type synonyms of type classes.

```
class _Trace lvl where
trace :: lvl -> Text -> a -> a
makeDict ''_Trace
type Trace = _Trace
runTraceStderr :: (Trace lvl => a) -> a
= withFakeDict (Trace_Dict {
runTraceStderr = Debug.Trace.trace
_trace _
})
ignoreTrace :: (Trace lvl => a) -> a
= withFakeDict (Trace_Dict {
ignoreTrace = x
_trace _ _ x })
```

Nice! We just defined a fairly extensible little tracing library in less than 20 lines of code.

Here is why this is a good application of fake local instances

- There is no reason to manually implement the
`Trace`

type class, so we were able to hide it completely and fully prevent incoherence. - In case we made a mistake or this whole approach is fundamentally
flawed and GHC decides to pick the wrong instance, nothing major breaks.
(You can never be entirely sure with
`unsafeCoerce`

tricks like this) - This is really easy to implement, and much less limited than most
alternative approaches (Logging monads/effects, global
`IORef`

s, âŠ)

## Conclusion

Now, what did we learn from all of this?

- It is possible to transfer instances between newtypes.
- This approach can be expanded to allow the inclusion of arbitrary functions as instance methods.
- All segfaults stemming from non-unsafe functions can be avoided and it is possible to generate most boilerplate.
- Incoherence, stemming from multiple instances being available at once, is an issue.
- ImplicitParams can be emulated with local instances.
- A tiny extensible tracing library is a pretty cool application of local instances.

Does this mean, you should throw all your newtypes out of the window? No.

Does this mean, you should use the code from this article in
production? Probably not. You should really know what youâre doing if
you want to use anything in production that is based on
`unsafeCoerce`

. That said, if you want to try this out for
yourself, the code is available in a small library on github,
including `trace`

.

Ultimately, I hope that you learned a nice little trick today. You never know when it might come in handy.

In this particular example, most boilerplate could be eliminated by using

`Sum`

âs`Num`

instance, but in most real scenarios itâs unfortunately not that simple.â©ïžThere are very good reasons why Haskell doesnât have local instances, but weâll get to that.â©ïž

WellâŠ weâll see about that.â©ïž

I told you, unsafeCoerce was dangerousâŠâ©ïž

*safe*here just means that it doesnât segfault. Weâll get to other meanings of safe, donât worry!â©ïžFeel free to submit a pull request if you would like to write a better implementationâ©ïž

I did not use

`withFakeDict`

here, since`Show`

has a few additional methods that we would have had to implement manuallyâ©ïž

If you want to tell me your thoughts about this post, you can leave a comment on Reddit or contact me directly.