Safer HTML construction with types

In this section we'll learn how to create our own distinguished types for HTML, and how they can help us avoid invalid construction of HTML strings.

There are a few ways of defining new types in Haskell, in this section we are going to meet two ways: newtype and type.

newtype

newtype lets us give a new name to an already existing type in a way that the two cannot mix together.

A newtype declaration looks like this:

newtype <type-name> = <constructor> <existing-type>

For example in our case we can define a distinct type for Html like this:

newtype Html = Html String

The first Html, to the left of the equals sign, lives in the types name space, meaning that you will only see that name to the right of a double-colon sign (::).

The second Html lives in the expressions (or terms/values) name space, meaning that you will see it where you expect expressions (we'll touch where exactly that can be in a moment).

The two names, <type-name> and <constructor>, do not have to be the same, but they often are. And note that both have to start with a capital letter.

The right-hand side of the newtype declaration describes the shape of a value of that type. In our case, we expect a value of type Html to have the constructor Html and then an expression of type string, for example: Html "hello" or Html ("hello " <> "world").

You can think of the constructor as a function that takes the argument and returns something of our new type:

Html :: String -> Html

Note: We cannot use an expression of type Html the same way we'd use a String. so "hello " <> Html "world" would fail at type checking.

This is useful when we want encapsulation. We can define and use existing representation and functions for our underlying type, but not mix them with other, unrelated (to our domain) types. Similar as meters and feet can both be numbers, but we don't want to accidentally add feet to meters without any conversion.


For now, let's create a couple of types for our use case. We want two separate types to represent:

  1. A complete Html document
  2. A type for html structures such as headers and paragraphs that can go inside the tag

We want them to be distinct because we don't want to mix them together.

Solution
newtype Html = Html String

newtype Structure = Structure String

Using newtypes

In order to use the underlying type that the newtype wraps, we first need to extract it out of the type. We do this using pattern matching.

Pattern matching can be used in two ways, in case expressions and in function definitions.

  1. case expressions are kind of beefed up switch expressions and look like this:

    case <expression> of
      <pattern> -> <expression>
      ...
      <pattern> -> <expression>
    

    The <expression> is the thing we want to unpack, and the pattern is its concrete shape. For example, if we wanted to extract the String out of the type Structure we defined in the exercise above, we do:

    getStructureString :: Structure -> String
    getStructureString struct =
      case struct of
        Structure str -> str
    

    This way we can extract the String out of Structure and return it.

    In later chapters we'll introduce data declarations (which are kind of a struct + enum chimera), where we can define multiple constructors to a type. Then the multiple patterns of a case expression will make more sense.

  2. Alternatively, when declaring a function, we can also use pattern matching on the arguments:

    func <pattern> = <expression>
    

    For example:

    getStructureString :: Structure -> String
    getStructureString (Structure str) = str
    

    Using the types we created, we can change the HTML functions we've defined before, namely html_, body_, p_, etc, to operate on these types instead of Strings.

    But first let's meet another operator that will make our code more concise.

One very cool thing about newtype is that wrapping and extracting expressions doesn't actually have a performance cost! The compiler knows to remove any wrapping and extraction of the newtype constructor and use the underlying type.

The new type and the constructor we defined are only there to help us distinguish between the type we created and the underlying type when we write our code, they are not needed when the code is running.

newtypes provide us with type safety with no performance penalty!

Chaining functions

Another interesting and extremely common operator (which is a regular library function in Haskell) is . (pronounced compose). This operator was made to look like the composition operator you may know from math ().

Let's look at its type and implementation:

(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g x = f (g x)

Compose takes 3 arguments: two functions (named f and g here) and a third argument named x. It then passes the argument x to the second function g, and calls the first function f with the result of g x.

Note that g takes as input something of the type a and returns something of the type b, and f takes something of the type b, and returns something of the type c.

Another important thing to note is that types which start with a lowercase letter are type variables. Think of them as similar to regular variables. Just like content could be any string, like "hello" or "world", a type variable can be any type: Bool, String, String -> String, etc. This abilitiy is called parametric polymorphism (other languages often call this generics).

The catch is that type variables must match in a signature, so if for example we write a function with the type signature a -> a, the input type and the return type must match, but it could be any type - we cannot know what it is. So the only way to implement a function with that signature is:

id :: a -> a
id x = x

id, short for the identity function, returns the exact value it received. If we tried any other way, for example returning some made up value like "hello", or try to use x like a value of a type we know like writing x + x, the type checker will complain.

Also, remember that -> is right associative? This signature is equivalent to:

(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)

Doesn't it look like a function that takes two functions and returns a third function that is the composition of the two?

We can now use this operator to change our HTML functions. Let's start with one example: p_.

Before, we had:

p_ :: String -> String
p_ = el "p"

And now, we can write:

p_ :: String -> Structure
p_ = Structure . el "p"

The function p_ will take an arbitrary String which is the content of the paragraph we wish to create, will wrap it in <p> and </p> tags, and then wrap it in the Structure constructor to produce the output type Structure (remember: newtype constructors can be used as functions!).

Let's take a deeper look at the types:

  • Structure :: String -> Structure
  • el "p" :: String -> String
  • (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
  • Structure . el "p" :: String -> Structure

Let's see why the expression Structure . el "p" type checks, and why its type is String -> Structure.

Type checking with pen and paper

If we want to figure out if and how exactly an expression type-checks, we can do that rather systematically. Let's look at an example where we try and type-check this expression:

p_ = Structure . el "p"

First, we write down the type of the outer-most function. In our case this is the operator . which has the type:

(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)

After that, we can try to match the type of the arguments we apply to this function with the type of the arguments from the type signature.

In this case, we try to apply two arguments to .:

  1. Structure :: String -> Structure
  2. el "p" :: String -> String

And luckily . expects two arguments with the types:

  1. b -> c
  2. a -> b

Note: Applying a function with more arguments than it expects is a type error.

Since the . operator takes at least the number of arguments we supply, we continue to the next phase of type-checking: matching the types of the inputs with the types of the expected inputs (from the type signature of the operator).

When we match two types, we are checking for equivalence between them. There are a few possible scenarios here:

  1. When the two types are concrete (as opposed to type variables) and simple, like Int and Bool, we check if they are the same. If they are, they type check and we continue. If they aren't, they don't type check and we throw an error.
  2. When the two types we match are more complex (for example both are functions), we try to match their inputs and outputs (in case of functions). If the inputs and outputs match, then the two types match.
  3. There is a special case when one of the types is a type variable - in this case we treat the matching process like an equation and we write it down somewhere. The next time we see this type variable, we replace it with its match in the equation. Think about this like assigning a type variable with a value.

In our case, we want to match (or check the equivalence of) these types:

  1. String -> Structure with b -> c
  2. String -> String with a -> b

Let's do this one by one, starting with (1) - matching String -> Structure and b -> c:

  1. Because the two types are complex, we check that they are both functions, and match their inputs and outputs: String with b, and Structure with c.
  2. Because b is a type variable, we mark down somewhere that b should be equivalent to String. We write b ~ String (we use ~ to denote equivalence).
  3. We match Structure and c, same as before, we write down that c ~ Structure.

No problem so far, let's try matching String -> String with a -> b:

  1. The two types are complex, we see that both are functions so we match their inputs and outputs.
  2. Matching String with a - we write down that a ~ String.
  3. Matching String with b - we remember that we have already written about b - looking back we see that we already noted that b ~ String. We need to replace b with the type that we wrote down before and check it against this type, so we match String with String which, fortunately, type-check because they are the same.

So far so good. We've type-checked the expression and discovered the following things about the type variables in it:

  1. a ~ String
  2. b ~ String
  3. c ~ Structure

Now, when asking what is the type of the expression:

p_ = Structure . el "p"

We say that it is the type of . after replacing the type variables using the equations we found and removing the inputs we applied to it, so we started with:

(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)

Then we replaced the type variables:

(.) :: (String -> Structure) -> (String -> String) -> (String -> Structure)

And removed the two arguments when we apply the function:

Structure . el "p" :: String -> Structure

And we got the type of the expression!

Fortunately, Haskell is able to do this process for us. But when Haskell complains that our types fail to type-check and we don't understand exactly why, going through this process can help us understand where the types do not match, and then we can figure out how to solve it.

Note: If we use a parametrically polymorphic function more than once, or use different functions that have similar type variable names, the type variables don't have to match in all instances simply because they share a name. Each instance has its own unique set of type variables. For example:

id :: a -> a
ord :: Char -> Int
chr :: Int -> Char

incrementChar :: Char -> Char
incrementChar c = chr (ord (id c) + id 1)

In the snippet above, we use id twice (for no good reason other than for demonstration purposes). The first id takes a Char as an argument, and its a is equivalent to Char. The second id takes an Int as an argument, and its distinct a is equivalent to Int.

This unfortunately only applies to functions defined at the top-level. If we'd define a local function to be passed as an argument to incrementChar with the same type signature as id, the types must match in all uses. So this code:

incrementChar :: (a -> a) -> Char -> Char
incrementChar func c = chr (ord (func c) + func 1)

Will not type check. Try it!

Appending Structure

Before when we wanted to create richer HTML content and appended nodes to one another, we used the append (<>) operator. Since we are now not using String anymore, we need another way to do it.

While it is possible to overload <> using a feature in Haskell called type classes, we will instead create a new function and call it append_, and cover type classes later.

append_ should take two Structures, and return a third Structure, appending the inner String in the first Structure to the second and wrapping the result back in Structure.


Try implementing append_.

Solution
append_ :: Structure -> Structure -> Structure
append_ (Structure a) (Structure b) =
  Structure (a <> b)

Converting back an Html to String

After constructing a valid Html value, we want to be able to print it to the output so we can display it in our browser. For that, we need to write a function that takes an Html and converts it to a String, which we can then pass to putStrLn.


Implement the render function.

Solution
render :: Html -> String
render html =
  case html of
    Html str -> str

type

Let's look at one more way to give new names to types.

A type definition looks really similar to a newtype definition - the only difference is that we reference the type name directly without a constructor:

type <type-name> = <existing-type>

For example in our case we can write:

type Title = String

type, in contrast with newtype, is just a type name alias. When we declare that Title is a type alias of String We mean that Title and String are interchangeable, and we can use one or the other whenever we want:

"hello" :: Title

"hello" :: String

Both are valid in this case.

We can sometimes use types to give a bit more clarity to our code, but they are much less useful than newtypes which allow us to distinguish between two types that have the same type representation.

The rest of the owl


Try changing the code we wrote in previous chapters to use the new types we created.

Tips

We can combine makeHtml and html_, and remove body_ head_ and title_ by calling el directly in html_, which can now have the type Title -> Structure -> Html. This will make our HTML EDSL less flexible but more compact.

Alternatively, we could create newtypes for HtmlHead and HtmlBody and pass those to html_, and we might do that at later chapters, but I've chose to keep the API a bit simple for now, we can always refactor later!

Solution
-- hello.hs

main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn (render myhtml)

myhtml :: Html
myhtml =
  html_
    "My title"
    ( append_
      (h1_ "Header")
      ( append_
        (p_ "Paragraph #1")
        (p_ "Paragraph #2")
      )
    )

newtype Html
  = Html String

newtype Structure
  = Structure String

type Title
  = String

html_ :: Title -> Structure -> Html
html_ title content =
  Html
    ( el "html"
      ( el "head" (el "title" title)
        <> el "body" (getStructureString content)
      )
    )

p_ :: String -> Structure
p_ = Structure . el "p"

h1_ :: String -> Structure
h1_ = Structure . el "h1"

el :: String -> String -> String
el tag content =
  "<" <> tag <> ">" <> content <> "</" <> tag <> ">"

append_ :: Structure -> Structure -> Structure
append_ c1 c2 =
  Structure (getStructureString c1 <> getStructureString c2)

getStructureString :: Structure -> String
getStructureString content =
  case content of
    Structure str -> str

render :: Html -> String
render html =
  case html of
    Html str -> str

Are we safe yet?

We have made some progress - now we can't write "Hello" where we'd expect either a paragraph or a header, but we can still write Structure "hello" and get something that isn't a paragraph or a header. So while we made it harder for the user to make mistakes by accident, we haven't really been able to enforce the invariants we wanted to enforce in our library.

Next we'll see how we can make expressions such as Structure "hello" illegal as well using modules and smart constructors.