Moving Towards Dialogue
This blog post is essentially a transcript of a 10minute talk I gave at !!Con, the slides for which are available here.
Let’s talk about typed holes. What’s a typed hole? A definition I like is “a placeholder for an expression with a known type and an unknown value”.
Why are typed holes useful? Because they allow the language to help us write programs! To demonstrate, let’s look at some code in Python, a language that lacks this feature.
Suppose I want to write a function that takes another function and a list and applies the function to each element of that list. A first stab might look like this:
>>> def map(f, ls): return []
This is obviously wrong: this function ignores its arguments and gives us an empty list each time. This is no good, but what’s worse is that Python will accept this definition without complaint. It doesn’t seem to know (or care).
Let’s try again. I hear the way to do things with lists in Python is to use a list comprehension, so I make sure to use one of those this time:
>>> def map(f, ls): [f(e) for e in ls]
...>>> plusOne = lambda i: i + 1
>>> print(map(plusOne, [1, 2, 3]))
None
But this definition is still wrong, because I forgot to put a return
statement in! Again, Python will happily accept this.
I’m getting a bit frustrated at this point, so I look at how map
is actually
implemented. It uses a generator comprehension instead of a list comprehension,
which makes it more general somehow, so I make sure to use that, and I remember
to put a return
statement in this time:
>>> def map(f, ls): return (f(e) for e in ls)
...>>> print(map(plusOne, [1, 2, 3]))
<generator object map.<locals>.<genexpr> at 0x7ffb92103ca8>
And now instead of giving me something useful, this function gives me an address in memory, which seems especially pointless.
I give up. This example seems contrived, but over the course of my relationship with Python, which is more than a decade long now, I’ve seen the same dynamic play out embarrassingly many times. How do I write programs that work? Surely this is a simple question with a straightforward answer.
Indeed, the most common response I get when I ask this question is to write tests. That sounds reasonable, so let’s do that:
>>> def map(f, ls):
print("Where are your tests now?")
... return [2, 3, 4]
...
...>>> map(plusOne, [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]
Where are your tests now?True
Okay, my test passes, so everything must be good, right?
I contend that tests are necessary, but not sufficient. They are problematic for at least two reasons:
 They are only as good as the specification they imply for how a program should behave. If that specification is incomplete or wrong, no amount of tests will guarantee software that works.
 The language doesn’t understand tests, by which I mean that it’s extremely difficult to automatically go from a failing test to the part of the code where the error lives. The programmer has to do the legwork of tracking down the bug based on essentially one bit of information in many cases.
Fortunately, tests aren’t the only specification of how a program should behave. Types can also serve as specifications, and they have the advantage that they are extremely well integrated into the language in a way tests usually are not.
What does this mean in practice? Let’s look at Haskell. Haskell is statically typed, which means it expects to know the types of all the expressions in your program at compile time. This is nothing special though, lots of other languages also claim to be statically typed. What is special about Haskell though is that it has type inference, which means that you don’t have to annotate expressions with their types most of the time because the compiler can figure it out. If you put these two features together, you get typed holes!
Let’s try to write that same program in Haskell with typed holes. To start,
let’s create a file called Main.hs
with the following contents:
import Prelude hiding (map)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b]
map f ls = _
plusOne :: Int > Int
plusOne i = i + 1
main :: IO ()
main = print ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4])
To automate the cycle of loading this file into GHCi every time we make a
change, we’re going to use ghcid
,
which does essentially that and not much else. This is the result of running
ghcid Main.hs
:
Main.hs:4:12: error:
• Found hole: _ :: [b]
Where: ‘b’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > [a] > [b]
at Main.hs:3:129
• In the expression: _
In an equation for ‘map’: map f ls = _
• Relevant bindings include
ls :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:4:7)
f :: a > b (bound at Main.hs:4:5)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b] (bound at Main.hs:4:1)

4  map f ls = _  ^
I’d suggest ignoring the middle and instead focusing on the top, which tells us the type of the hole, and the bottom, which tells us which bindings are in scope that we can use to fill in the hole.
In this case we aren’t learning anything new, and we already know that the hole
is of type [b]
, but it’s useful to know that our view of the world agrees
with GHC’s. Of the bindings available to us, ls
looks like the most
promising, and we can split it into one of two cases: an empty list, or some
element and the rest of the list. We can put a typed hole on the right hand
side of each case alternative:
import Prelude hiding (map)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b]
map f ls = case ls of
[] > _1
x:xs > _2
plusOne :: Int > Int
plusOne i = i + 1
main :: IO ()
main = print ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4])
And our ghcid
output changes:
Main.hs:5:1112: error:
• Found hole: _1 :: [b]
Where: ‘b’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > [a] > [b]
at Main.hs:3:129
Or perhaps ‘_1’ is misspelled, or not in scope
• In the expression: _1
In a case alternative: [] > _1
In the expression:
case ls of
[] > _1
x : xs > _2
• Relevant bindings include
ls :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:4:7)
f :: a > b (bound at Main.hs:4:5)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b] (bound at Main.hs:4:1)

5  [] > _1
 ^^
Main.hs:6:1314: error:
• Found hole: _2 :: [b]
Where: ‘b’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > [a] > [b]
at Main.hs:3:129
Or perhaps ‘_2’ is misspelled, or not in scope
• In the expression: _2
In a case alternative: x : xs > _2
In the expression:
case ls of
[] > _1
x : xs > _2
• Relevant bindings include
xs :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:6:7)
x :: a (bound at Main.hs:6:5)
ls :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:4:7)
f :: a > b (bound at Main.hs:4:5)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b] (bound at Main.hs:4:1)

6  x:xs > _2  ^^
We haven’t learned anything new about the types, but we can make progress another way. The only sensible thing to put on the right hand side when given an empty list is another empty list, and after splitting a list apart the most reasonable thing to do is to combine two other things into a new list:
import Prelude hiding (map)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b]
map f ls = case ls of
[] > []
x:xs > _1:_2
plusOne :: Int > Int
plusOne i = i + 1
main :: IO ()
main = print ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4])
Now the output gets a little more interesting:
Main.hs:6:1314: error:
• Found hole: _1 :: b
Where: ‘b’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > [a] > [b]
at Main.hs:3:129
Or perhaps ‘_1’ is misspelled, or not in scope
• In the first argument of ‘(:)’, namely ‘_1’
In the expression: _1 : _2
In a case alternative: x : xs > _1 : _2
• Relevant bindings include
xs :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:6:7)
x :: a (bound at Main.hs:6:5)
ls :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:4:7)
f :: a > b (bound at Main.hs:4:5)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b] (bound at Main.hs:4:1)

6  x:xs > _1:_2
 ^^
Main.hs:6:1617: error:
• Found hole: _2 :: [b]
Where: ‘b’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > [a] > [b]
at Main.hs:3:129
Or perhaps ‘_2’ is misspelled, or not in scope
• In the second argument of ‘(:)’, namely ‘_2’
In the expression: _1 : _2
In a case alternative: x : xs > _1 : _2
• Relevant bindings include
xs :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:6:7)
x :: a (bound at Main.hs:6:5)
ls :: [a] (bound at Main.hs:4:7)
f :: a > b (bound at Main.hs:4:5)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b] (bound at Main.hs:4:1)

6  x:xs > _1:_2  ^^
Our first hole is now of type b
, and we see that it’s possible to get a value
of this type by applying f
to x
. The second hole is still of type [b]
,
and we see that the most reasonable way to get a value of this type is to
recurse, using map
with f
and xs
.
import Prelude hiding (map)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b]
map f ls = case ls of
[] > []
x:xs > f x: map f xs
plusOne :: Int > Int
plusOne i = i + 1
main :: IO ()
main = print ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4])
And ghcid
is satisfied:
All good (1 module, at <time>)
It compiles! But does it work?
$ runhaskell Main.hs
True
Fantastic! We were able to ask the compiler for hints and get useful answers back. This is a gigantic improvement over anything I’m aware of in Python land.
Unfortunately, there is a catch: this program is too easy to break. Let me demonstrate my favourite way:
import Prelude hiding (map)
map :: (a > b) > [a] > [b]
map f ls = []
plusOne :: Int > Int
plusOne i = i + 1
main :: IO ()
main = print ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4])
The astute reader will notice that this is the Haskell equivalent of the
obviously broken Python program we started with. Here is what ghcid
has to
say:
All good (1 module, at <time>)
So what’s going on here? It turns out an empty list is a valid list of any type. Is it a list of Strings? Yup. Is it a list of Ints? Sure!
One way of avoiding this class of incorrect program is to specify that the input and the output lists should be of the same length. It’s possible to do this in Haskell, but it is a lot of work. Can we do better?
Enter Idris.
Idris is a functional programming language with a more sophisticated type system than Haskell’s. Unfortunately it trades off some type inference to achieve this, so it’s not strictly better than Haskell in every way. It has excellent builtin editor support, and therefore has fancier typed holes!
Let’s try to implement map
again:
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
Instead of implementing map
on lists, we’ll use a more interesting type
called Vect
which is essentially a list that knows about its length. A Vect
can either be Nil
of length 0
or an element on the front of another Vect
of some length length
giving us a new Vect
of length length + 1
. I’ve
also gone ahead defined equality on these Vect
s because I use it in main
.
Loading the file into the Idris REPL gives us access to the editor integration:
$ idris Main.idr
____ __ _
/ _/___/ /____(_)____
/ // __ / ___/ / ___/ Version 1.3.0
_/ // /_/ / / / (__ ) http://www.idrislang.org/
/___/\__,_/_/ /_/____/ Type :? for help
Idris is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type :warranty.
Type checking ./Main.idr
Holes: Main.map
*Main>
In vim, I can use <localleader>d
with the cursor on map
to fill in a
skeleton definition:
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
= ?map_rhs
map f x
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
Using <localleader>t
with the cursor on the typed hole provides a type for
us:
b : Type
a : Type
f : a > b
length : Nat
x : Vect length a
 map_rhs : Vect length b
But we don’t need to go down this route. We can make Idris do a casesplit for
us with <localleader>c
with the cursor on x
:
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
= ?map_rhs_1
map f [] :: y) = ?map_rhs_2
map f (x
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
Again, as with our Haskell example, the only sensible output when the input is
an empty Vect
is another empty Vect
. We think so, but what does Idris
think? It has a nifty feature called “proof search” that can search the space
of all possible programs that fit and choose the first one. We can use this
with <localleader>o
(‘o’ is for obvious):
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
= []
map f [] :: y) = ?map_rhs_2
map f (x
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
And we get the result we expect. This works for the simple case, but does it work for the more complex one?
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
= []
map f [] :: y) = f x :: map f y
map f (x
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
It does!
What happens when we try to break this like we broke our Haskell program?
data Vect : Nat > Type > Type where
Nil : Vect 0 a
(::) : a > Vect length a > Vect (1 + length) a
implementation (Eq a) => Eq (Vect l a) where
==) [] [] = True
(==) (x::xs) (y::ys) = x == y && xs == ys
(
map : (a > b) > Vect length a > Vect length b
= []
map f [] :: y) = []
map f (x
plusOne : Int > Int
= i + 1
plusOne i
main : IO ()
= printLn ((map plusOne [1, 2, 3]) == [2, 3, 4]) main
This is what Idris has to say:
*Main> :r
Type checking ./Main.idr
Main.idr:11:1819:

11  map f (x :: y) = []
 ~~
When checking right hand side of Main.map with expected type
Vect (1 + length) b
Type mismatch between
Vect 0 a (Type of [])
and
Vect (S length) b (Expected type)
Specifically:
Type mismatch between
0
and
S length
Holes: Main.map
We get a useful and informative error message.
And we’ve done it! You can download and use these languages today. When using other languages with static types, I always felt that they existed merely as busywork and I essentially had to shove them down the compiler’s throat in order to get it to accept my program, and I feel the opposite way about these languages. In other words, types are friends, not food! They can help you design your program, write that program, and even debug it if necessary.
One aspect of programming that always bothered me was my perception of the compiler (or interpreter) as some sort of gatekeeper whose job was to dismiss my program until it met some arbitrary standard. Even worse, I would find myself writing a program that passed but was subtly incorrect, and I would iterate on this process, writing a series of subtly incorrect programs without any guidance from my tools. Discovering typed holes and the style of programming they enable has shown me a different approach, where I can open up a dialogue with my language and collaborate on writing a program whose correctness I am more confident of.
That’s all I have to say about typed holes, but there’s recently been interesting work on untyped holes that I would like to mention briefly. Suppose you like the idea of holes but not the idea of types, or you work in a language that isn’t statically typed and you want some of these benefits. What you could do is:
 Write a program with gaps where you’re unsure what should happen (we’ll call this a sketch)
 Write some test cases that the correct program should satisfy
 Feed both these things to a SAT/SMT solver (a clever program with a bag of tricks)
 ???
 Profit!!!
The solver churns through the space of all prossible programs and picks the one that passes the tests, giving us the correct program we wanted!
This sounds great in theory, so why aren’t we doing this yet? There is (predictably) a catch, which is that this is still a research topic for now. You can read Armando SolarLezama’s PhD thesis on this, and systems like Synquid and Barliman demonstrate the current state of the art. I think it’s especially interesting that Synquid has both typed and untyped holes, which suggests to me that it is the most promising approach.
I’ll leave you with some resources about typed holes, particularly Conor McBride’s presentations at YOW! Lambda Jam and Haskell eXchange that are rich with insight. There’s also a tutorial by Mark Wotton, and finally Hazel, which is a live functional programming environment with typed holes!
I hope I’ve encouraged you to try this style of programming for yourself. There’s never been a better time to do it.