Quantified class constraints have been proposed many years ago to raise the expressive power of type classes from Horn clauses to the universal fragment of Hereditiary Harrop logic. Yet, while it has been much asked for over the years, the feature was never implemented or studied in depth. Instead, several workarounds have been proposed, all of which are ultimately stopgap measures.This paper revisits the idea of quantified class constraints and elaborates it into a practical language design. We show the merit of quantified class constraints in terms of more expressive modeling and in terms of terminating type class resolution. In addition, we provide a declarative specification of the type system as well as a type inference algorithm that elaborates into System F. Moreover, we discuss termination conditions of our system and also provide a prototype implementation.

Quantified class constraints have been proposed many years ago to raise the expressive power of type classes from Horn clauses to the universal fragment of Hereditiary Harrop logic. Yet, while it has been much asked for over the years, the feature was never implemented or studied in depth. Instead, several workarounds have been proposed, all of which are ultimately stopgap measures.This paper revisits the idea of quantified class constraints and elaborates it into a practical language design. We show the merit of quantified class constraints in terms of more expressive modeling and in terms of terminating type class resolution. In addition, we provide a declarative specification of the type system as well as a type inference algorithm that elaborates into System F. Moreover, we discuss termination conditions of our system and also provide a prototype implementation.

Elaboration-based type class resolution, as found in languages like Haskell, Mercury and PureScript, is generally nondeterministic: there can be multiple ways to satisfy a wanted constraint in terms of global instances and locally given constraints. Coherence is the key property that keeps this sane; it guarantees that, despite the nondeterminism, programs still behave predictably. Even though elaboration-based resolution is generally assumed coherent, as far as we know, there is no formal proof of this property in the presence of sources of nondeterminism, like superclasses and flexible contexts.This paper provides a formal proof to remedy the situation. The proof is non-trivial because the semantics elaborates resolution into a target language where different elaborations can be distinguished by contexts that do not have a source language counterpart. Inspired by the notion of full abstraction, we present a two-step strategy that first elaborates nondeterministically into an intermediate language that preserves contextual equivalence, and then deterministically elaborates from there into the target language. We use an approach based on logical relations to establish contextual equivalence and thus coherence for the first step of elaboration, while the second step's determinism straightforwardly preserves this coherence property.

Designing a language feature often requires a choice between several, similarly expressive possibilities. Given that user studies are generally impractical, we propose using stability as a way of making such decisions. Stability is a measure of whether the meaning of a program alters under small, seemingly innocuous changes in the code (e.g., inlining).Directly motivated by a need to pin down a feature in GHC/Haskell, we apply this notion of stability to analyse four approaches to the instantiation of polymorphic types, concluding that the most stable approach is lazy (instantiate a polytype only when absolutely necessary) and shallow (instantiate only top-level type variables, not variables that appear after explicit arguments).