Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6914301
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T09:19:47+00:00 2026-05-27T09:19:47+00:00

Suppose I have some generic function genericFunc :: a -> b genericFunc x =

  • 0

Suppose I have some generic function

genericFunc :: a -> b
genericFunc x = doSomeHardWork

But for a particular type, there is a much more efficient way that genericFunc could be done.

genericFunc :: ParticularType -> b
genericFunc x = doSomeEasyWork

What is the best way to combine these two function bodies into the same genericFunc, such that when used on ParticularType, it will doSomeEasyWork, but when used on other types, it will doSomeHardWork? I’m specifically excluding the option of using a different name, or different modules.

I believe this can be done with a typeclass, but I am more interested in solutions that use language pragmas. I have a vague inkling that this can be done with language pragmas but I have no idea how. Bonus points if you compare and contrast these approaches, and/or any other possible approaches.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T09:19:48+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 9:19 am

    This can be done with type classes by defining the general-purpose method in the class definition and overriding it in an instance. The overridden function will always be used.

    class ContainsInt c where
      toList :: c -> [Int]
    
      -- generic function
      elem :: Int -> c -> Bool
      elem n x = Prelude.elem n (toList x)
    
    instance ContainsInt () where
      toList _ = []
    
      -- Override the generic function for type ()
      elem _ _ = False
    

    An alternative supported by GHC is to use a rewrite rule. The rewrite rule tells GHC to replace one expression by another whenever possible. If the replacement is ill-typed, it will not be done, so you can use this to replace a function by a specialized version. The rewrite rule is given by a {-# RULES #-} pragma.

    class ContainsInt c where
      toList :: c -> [Int]
    
    elem :: ContainsInt c => Int -> c -> Bool
    elem n x = Prelude.elem n (toList x)
    
    -- Replace 'elem' by 'elemUnit' if it has the same type
    {-# RULES "elem()" forall. elem = elemUnit #-}
    
    elemUnit :: Int -> () -> Bool
    elemUnit _ _ = False
    

    Rewrite rules are performed at the discretion of the compiler, so the specialized function may or may not be called in any given situation. For example, the rewrite may depend on whether the compiler decides to inline a function:

    foo :: ContainsInt c -> Int -> [c] -> [Bool]
    -- Must use the generic function
    foo n cs = map (elem n) cs
    
    useFoo :: Int -> [()] -> [Bool]
    -- If 'foo' is inlined and 'elem' is not inlined, then this function will contain a rewritable call to 'elem'.
    -- Otherwise rewriting cannot happen.
    useFoo n cs = foo n cs
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Suppose I have some class which has a property actor_ of type Actor .
Is there a safer way to typecast data from a generic pointer.? More specifically
Suppose I have some code that would, in theory, compile against any version of
Suppose I have some XAML like this: <Window.Resources> <v:MyClass x:Key=whatever Text=foo\nbar /> </Window.Resources> Obviously
Suppose we have some named enums: enum MyEnum { FOO, BAR = 0x50 };
Suppose I have some code: let listB = [ 1; 2; 3 ] Using
Suppose I have some per-class data: (AandB.h) class A { public: static Persister* getPersister();
Suppose I have some application A with a database. Now I want to add
Suppose i have some tabs (e.g. jquery tab) and I want to dynamically load
Suppose I have some pointer, which I want to reinterpret as static dimension array

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.