> map reverse
No instance for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))
arising from a use of `M1690418375.show_M1690418375'
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))
Hmm.... > map reverse
No instance for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))
arising from a use of `M1690418375.show_M1690418375'
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))
Hmm.... > :t map reverse
:: [[a]] -> [[a]]
> show (map reverse)
No instance for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))
You can't show functions. Pass an argument: > map reverse ["test","this"]
=> ["tset","siht"]> let f = map reverse
> f [[1,2,3], [6,7,8]]
EDIT: scratch the "let" example (thanks nandemo), tryhaskell.org doesn't support that. my bad!
Note that in "let t=bar in foo" the scope of t is restricted to foo, so the example above still doesn't work.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/b58rk/try_haskell/c... ([deleted] = Chris Doner)
IMHO the tryhaskell expose more or less only simple pure functions and I doubt that anyone with a real interest in haskell will get any substantial out of it. However if one is completely new to programming maybe TryHaskell and these 6 short lessons have a value.
Incidentally, Chris Doner has been producing far more exciting things like Fay, so I'm not gonna complain about TryHaskell.
Try map reverse ["abc", "123"] instead, which it does know how to print.
This looks like the kind of thing I get when my C linker has horribly choked on my code, what is the benefit of displaying: M1690418375.show_M1690418375 to the user? What should I do with that piece of information?
How do I 'add an instance declaration for (GHC.Show.Show ([[a0]] -> [[a0]]))'? I'm guessing that this is basically "suggesting" I implement printing for all functions? Or just for map? I'm not sure. I'm sure I'm not doing it, and it may well not even be possible?
(i) use ghc and ghci. TryHaskell isn't actively mantained AFAIK.
(ii) if you find a cryptic error message, first google it and learn the immediate fix, without trying to understand all the details. Of course, eventually you'll have to learn the details, but there's no reason it should be a blocking issue in the beginning.
In any case this is my short-ish, inaccurate version of "the details":
1. In the interpreter, there's an implicit "print foo" when you type "foo".
2. "print foo" expects a foo of any type t as long as t is an instance of the typeclass Show, meaning there must be a show function associated with t that turns t's into Strings. Roughly, that would be as if we had a Java where the method toString (=show) is not part of Object, but rather of an interface Showable, which not all classes have to implement.
3. In Haskell, it was decided that function types shouldn't be instances of Show because they don't have a sensible show implementation. In theory you can have a show implementation that prints "this is function" for all functions, but that's of limited usefulness.
4. The compiler's error message is just an instance of a more general message: a value foo is used in a place that expects a type that's an instance of SomeTypeClass, but foo turns out to be of a type T that isn't. For instance, if you try this on ghci:
> 'a' + 'b'
you'll get a similar error message, because '+' expects 2 arguments of a type that's an instance of typeclass Num, but 'a' and 'b' are of type Char which is not a Num in Haskell. In theory, the compiler could be "hardcoded" to print a special error message when SomeTypeClass happens to be Show, such as "can't print that type". That would be easier for beginners, but would add some complexity to the compiler.5. The "M1690418375.show_M1690418375" thing is probably an artifact of the way TryHaskell was implemented. In ghci, you simply get this instead:
arising from a use of `print'
I hope this helps. > let foo = map reverse
As the error message "clearly" says, the result "map reverse" is a function, which doesn't have a printed representation. You might think that all objects would at the minimum have a default printable representation as "[Object 0x011432542]" or something, but they don't. As always with haskell, the idea is to catch mistakes at compile time: in this case, mistakes where you wanted to show something meaningful to the user, but forgot to define how that kind of object should be printed.