So I've been reading about coinduction a bit lately, and now I'm wondering: are Haskell lists inductive or coinductive? I've also heard that Haskell doesn't distinguish the two, but if so, how do they do so formally?
Lists are defined inductively, data [a] = [] | a : [a], yet can be used coinductively, ones = a:ones. We can create infinite lists. Yet, we can create finite lists. So which are they?
Related is in Idris, where the type List a is strictly an inductive type, and is thus only finite lists. It's defined akin to how it is in Haskell. However, Stream a is a coinductive type, modeling an infinite list. It's defined as (or rather, the definition is equivalent to) codata Stream a = a :: (Stream a). It's impossible to create an infinite List or a finite Stream. However, when I write the definition
codata HList : Type -> Type where
Nil : HList a
Cons : a -> HList a -> HList a
I get the behavior that I expect from Haskell lists, namely that I can make both finite and infinite structures.
So let me boil them down to a few core questions:
Does Haskell not distinguish between inductive and coinductive types? If so, what's the formalization for that? If not, then which is [a]?
Is HList coinductive? If so, how can a coinductive type contain finite values?
What about if we defined data HList' a = L (List a) | R (Stream a)? What would that be considered and/or would it be useful over just HList?
Due to laziness, Haskell types are both inductive and coinductive, or, there is no formal distinguishment between data and codata. All recursive types can contain an infinite nesting of constructors. In languages such as Idris, Coq, Agda, etc. a definition like ones = 1 : ones is rejected by the termination checker. Laziness means that ones can be evaluated in one step to 1 : ones, whereas the other languages evaluate to normal form only, and ones does not have a normal form.
'Coinductive' does not mean 'necessarily infinite', it means 'defined by how it is deconstructed', wheras inductive means 'defined by how it is constructed'. I think this is an excellent explanation of the subtle difference. Surely you would agree that the type
codata A : Type where MkA : A
cannot be infinite.
This is an interesting one - as opposed to HList, which you can never 'know' if it is finite or infinite (specifically, you can discover in finite time if a list is finite, but you can't compute that it is infinite), HList' gives you a simple way to decide in constant time if your list is finite or infinite.