Consider this function:

tuple2Int :: (x -> Int) -> (a, b) -> (Int, Int)
tuple2Int f (a, b) = (f a, f b)


…which wouldn’t work. Why? Because of f a, the type checker deduces that x~a (x is equivalent to a); because of f b, the type checker also deduces that x~b. Therefore, a~x~b, which is obviously false for most cases.

With RankNTypes, we can instead write the type signature of the function as tuple2Int' :: (forall x. x -> Int) -> (a, b) -> (Int, Int). This way, the compiler knows that it should use two seperate x’s for a and b. It therefore deduces that x1~a and x2~b and because it is not enforced that x1~x2, there is no problem at all!

### Go Deeper

What’s going on?

First, we need to learn the cruel and ugly fact that NO so-called “generic” function in Haskell is actually generic in essence. What does this mean? Let’s consider length :: [a] -> Int. It looks pretty generic to me as I can use it on any type of list, you may say. This is true, but what happens under the hood is that the compiler specializes a version of the function with concrete type (i.e. no type variable like a) everytime you use it. For example, when you do length [1, 2, 3], a specialized version length(Int) :: [Int] -> Int is magically created by the compiler to accomodate you; when you do length "abcdefg", similarly a length(Char) [Char] -> Int is created. Just remember this for now.

Just as we use \x -> ... to define a lambda function with variable x, we use forall a. ... to define a type with type variable a. Therefore, suppose that we can construct the type of a function by a data constructor FunctionType a b, where a and b are values that represent types, our (forall x. x -> Int) in the last paragraph would be equivalent to \x -> FunctionType x Int. You also need to remember this.

And then, a crash course in lambda calculus. Consider this lambda function: \x y -> x + y + z. We call x and y bound variables, because their appearance is bound by the \x y part of the function. We call z a free variable, because it is defined “elsewhere” and is thus not bound by the \x y part. End of the crash course.

With the three things we just learned, we can touch on the problem. Firstly, we have a rule that no type variables in a type contruction can be free. For example, we can’t write a type-level function like \x -> FunctionType x y, or formally forall x. x -> y, because y is free. This is a very strict rule and obviously we don’t want to be scolded by the compiler every now and then just because of it, so we have another catch-all rule: if a type variable is not explicitly bound, it is then treated as bound at the beginning of the expression. What does this mean? Suppose we have a type a -> a (or FunctionType a a with our syntax). Because you see no forall in its type signature, technically a is free. This is when the rule kicks in: because a is not explicitly bound, we treat the whole type as forall a. a -> a (or \a -> FunctionType a a) and voila! The first rule is automatically satisfied. How nice.

Generic functions in Haskell are all defined this way. id, for example, has type forall a. a -> a. Our tuple2Int, because it has x, a and b that all appear to be free, has type forall x a b. (x -> Int) -> (a, b) -> (Int, Int) by the second rule. This is where our problem arises: when we are using this function, the compiler needs to create a concrete version of it (in other words, it needs to assign types to x, a and b). Furthremore, because x is scoped on the whole type expression, it must takes the same value everywhere. An example:

foo = (\x -> x + (\y -> x + 3) 4) 5
bar = (\f -> f 2 + f 3 + f 4) (\x -> x + 2)


In foo, because x is bound at the very beginning, it is scoped over the whole expression. Therefore, it must always takes the value 5. On the contrary, in bar, because x is bound only inside the second pair of brackets, it can take different values of 2, 3, and 4 elsewhere (i.e. inside the first pair of brackets).

Back to tuple2Int. What type should the compiler assign to x? It sees that a can be applied to x -> Int, so a and x must be the same. Similar deduction goes for b and x. Therefore, unless a and b are the same type, we would have a type contradiction.

Now make sure that you understand the problem, and we’ll proceed to its solution.