I was reading Dynamic programming example, there is a code like this:
buy n = r!n
where r = listArray (0,n) (Just (0,0,0) : map f [1..n])
f i = do (x,y,z) <- attempt (i-6)
return (x+1,y,z)
`mplus`
do (x,y,z) <- attempt (i-9)
return (x,y+1,z)
`mplus`
do (x,y,z) <- attempt (i-20)
return (x,y,z+1)
attempt x = guard (x>=0) >> r!x
My question is how the attempt x = guard (x>=0) >> r!x works?
According to this Control.Monad source code,
guard True = pure ()
guard False = empty
pure :: a -> f a
m >> k = m >>= \_ -> k
so if x>0, then:
attempt x
= (guard True) >> (r!x) = (pure ()) >> (r!x)
= (pure ()) >>= \_ -> r!x = (f ()) >>= (\_ -> r!x)
hence f () should be of type m a (Maybe a in this case), but how does Haskell know what f is? f () may return empty since it has never been specified. (f means f in pure)
And if x<0, empty is not in Maybe, how can this still applied to >>=?
That's multiple questions in one, but let's see if I can make things a bit more clear.
How does Haskell know what f is when interpreting pure ()? pure is a typeclass method, so this simply comes from the instance declaration of the type we're in. This changed recently, so you may have to follow a different path to reach the answer, but the result ends up the same: pure for Maybe is defined as Just.
In the same way, empty is in Maybe, and is defined as Nothing.
You'll find out what typeclass provides those functions by typing :i pure or :i empty at a ghci prompt; then you can seek the instance declaration Maybe makes for them.
It is unfortunate from an SO point of view that this changed recently so there's no clear permanent answer without knowing the specific versions you're using. Hopefully this will settle soon.
In the last expression of your manual evaluation of attempt x you are mixing up types and values. pure :: a -> f a is not a definition; it is a type signature (note the ::). To quote it fully, the type of pure is:
GHCi> :t pure
pure :: Applicative f => a -> f a
Here, the f stands for any instance of Applicative, and the a for any type. In your case, you are working with the Maybe monad/applicative functor, and so f is Maybe. The type of pure () is Maybe (). (() :: () is a dummy value used when you are not interested in a result. The () in pure () is a value, but the () in Maybe () is a type -- the type of the () value).
We will continue from the last correct step in your evaluation:
(pure ()) >>= \_ -> r!x
how does Haskell know what [pure ()] is?
In a sense, it doesn't need to. The function which makes use of pure () here is (>>=). It has the following type:
GHCi> :t (>>=)
(>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
Setting m to Maybe, as in your case, we get:
Maybe a -> (a -> Maybe b) -> Maybe b
The type of the first argument is Maybe a, and so (>>=) is able to handle any Maybe a value, including pure (), regardless of whether it is a Just-something or Nothing. Naturally, it will handle Just and Nothing differently, as that is the whole point of the Monad instance:
(Just x) >>= k = k x
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing
We still have to complete the evaluation. To do so, we need to know how pure is defined for Maybe. We can find the definition in the Applicative instance of Maybe:
pure = Just
Now we can finally continue:
(pure ()) >>= \_ -> r!x
Just () >>= \_ -> r!x
(\_ -> r!x) () -- See the implementation of `(>>=)` above.
r!x
I am currently playing with the Bryan O'Sullivan's resource-pool library and have a question regarding extending the withResource function.
I want to change the signature of the withResource function from (MonadBaseControl IO m) => Pool a -> (a -> m b) -> m b to (MonadBaseControl IO m) => Pool a -> (a -> m (Bool, b)) -> m b.
What I want to achieve is, that the action should return (Bool, b) tuple, where the boolean value indicates if the borrowed resource should
be put back into the pool or destroyed.
Now my current implementation looks like this:
withResource :: forall m a b. (MonadBaseControl IO m) => Pool a -> (a -> m (Bool, b)) -> m b
{-# SPECIALIZE withResource :: Pool a -> (a -> IO (Bool,b)) -> IO b #-}
withResource pool act = fmap snd result
where
result :: m (Bool, b)
result = control $ \runInIO -> mask $ \restore -> do
resource <- takeResource pool
ret <- restore (runInIO (act resource)) `onException`
destroyResource pool resource
void . runInIO $ do
(keep, _) <- restoreM ret :: m (Bool, b)
if keep
then liftBaseWith . const $ putResource pool resource
else liftBaseWith . const $ destroyResource pool resource
return ret
And I have a feeling, that this is not how it is supposed to look like...
Maybe I am not using the MonadBaseControl API right.
What do you guys think of this and how can I improve it to be more idiomatic?
I have a feeling that there is a fundamental problem with this approach. For monads for which StM M a is equal/isomorphic to a it will work. But for other monads there will be a problem. Let's consider MaybeT IO. An action of type a -> MaybeT IO (Bool, b) can fail, so there will be no Bool value produced. And the code in
void . runInIO $ do
(keep, _) <- restoreM ret :: m (Bool, b)
...
won't be executed, the control flow will stop at restoreM. And for ListT IO it'll be even worse, as putResource and destroyResource will be executed multiple times. Consider this sample program, which is a simplified version of your function:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts, ScopedTypeVariables, RankNTypes, TupleSections #-}
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.Trans.Control
import Control.Monad.Trans.List
foo :: forall m b . (MonadBaseControl IO m) => m (Bool, b) -> m b
foo act = fmap snd result
where
result :: m (Bool, b)
result = control $ \runInIO -> do
ret <- runInIO act
void . runInIO $ do
(keep, _) <- restoreM ret :: m (Bool, b)
if keep
then liftBaseWith . const $ putStrLn "return"
else liftBaseWith . const $ putStrLn "destroy"
return ret
main :: IO ()
main = void . runListT $ foo f
where
f = msum $ map (return . (, ())) [ False, True, False, True ]
It'll print
destroy
return
destroy
return
And for an empty list, nothing gets printed, which means no cleanup would be called in your function.
I have to say I'm not sure how to achieve your goal in a better way. I'd try to explore in the direction of signature
withResource :: forall m a b. (MonadBaseControl IO m)
=> Pool a -> (a -> IO () -> m b) -> m b
where the IO () argument would be a function, that when executed, invalidates the current resource and marks it to be destroyed. (Or, for better convenience, replace IO () with lifted m ()). Then internally, as it's IO-based, I'd just create a helper MVar that'd be reset by calling
the function, and at the end, based on the value, either return or destroy the resource.
I'm new to Haskell and FP so this question may seem silly.
I have a line of code in my main function
let y = map readFile directoryContents
where directoryContents is of type [FilePath]. This in turn (I think) makes y type [IO String] , so a list of strings - each string containing the contents of each file in directoryContents.
I have a functions written in another module that work on [String] and String but I'm unclear as how to call/use them now because y is of type [IO String]. Any pointers?
EDIT:
It was suggested to me that I want to use mapM instead of map, so:
let y = mapM readFile directoryContents , and y is now type IO [String], what do I do from here?
You're correct, the type is y :: [IO String].
Well, there are essentially main two parts here:
How to turn [IO String] into IO [String]
[IO String] is a list of of IO actions and what we need is an IO action that carries a list of strings (that is, IO [String]). Luckily, the function sequence provides exactly what we need:
sequence :: Monad m => [m a] -> m [a]
y' = sequence y :: IO [String]
Now the mapM function can simplify this, and we can rewrite y' as:
y' = mapM readFile directoryContents
mapM does the sequence for us.
How to get at the [String]
Our type is now IO [String], so the question is now "How do we get the [String] out of the IO?" This is what the function >>= (bind) does:
(>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
-- Specialized to IO, that type is:
(>>=) :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
We also have a function return :: Monad m => a -> m a which can put a value "into" IO.
So with these two functions, if we have some function f :: [String] -> SomeType, we can write:
ourResult = y' >>= (\theStringList -> return (f theStringList)) :: IO SomeType
Functions can be "chained" together with the >>= function. This can be a bit unreadable at times, so Haskell provides do notation to make things visually simpler:
ourResult = do
theStringList <- y'
return $ f theStringList
The compiler internally turns this into y' >>= (\theStringList -> f theStringList), which is the same as the y' >>= f that we had before.
Putting it all together
We probably don't actually want y' floating around, so we can eliminate that and arrive at:
ourResult = do
theStringList <- mapM readFile directoryContents
return $ f theStringList
Even more simplification
It turns out, this doesn't actually need the full power of >>=. In fact, all we need is fmap! This is because the function f only has one argument "inside" of IO and we aren't using any other previous IO result: we're making a result then immediately using it.
Using the law
fmap f xs == xs >>= return . f
we can rewrite the >>= code to use fmap like this:
ourResult = fmap f (mapM readFile directoryContents)
If we want to be even more terse, there is an infix synonym for fmap called <$>:
ourResult = f <$> mapM readFile directoryContents
Is it possible to have a function that takes a foreign function call where some of the foreign function's arguments are CString and return a function that accepts String instead?
Here's an example of what I'm looking for:
foreign_func_1 :: (CDouble -> CString -> IO())
foreign_func_2 :: (CDouble -> CDouble -> CString -> IO ())
externalFunc1 :: (Double -> String -> IO())
externalFunc1 = myFunc foreign_func_1
externalFunc2 :: (Double -> Double -> String -> IO())
externalFunc2 = myFunc foreign_func_2
I figured out how to do this with the C numeric types. However, I can't figure out a way to do it that can allow string conversion.
The problem seems to be fitting in IO functions, since everything that converts to CStrings such as newCString or withCString are IO.
Here is what the code looks like to just handle converting doubles.
class CConvertable interiorArgs exteriorArgs where
convertArgs :: (Ptr OtherIrrelevantType -> interiorArgs) -> exteriorArgs
instance CConvertable (IO ()) (Ptr OtherIrrelevantType -> IO ()) where
convertArgs = doSomeOtherThingsThatArentCausingProblems
instance (Real b, Fractional a, CConvertable intArgs extArgs) => CConvertable (a->intArgs) (b->extArgs) where
convertArgs op x= convertArgs (\ctx -> op ctx (realToFrac x))
Is it possible to have a function that takes a foreign function call where some of the foreign function's arguments are CString and return a function that accepts String instead?
Is it possible, you ask?
<lambdabot> The answer is: Yes! Haskell can do that.
Ok. Good thing we got that cleared up.
Warming up with a few tedious formalities:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}
Ah, it's not so bad though. Look, ma, no overlaps!
The problem seems to be fitting in IO functions, since everything that converts to CStrings such as newCString or withCString are IO.
Right. The thing to observe here is that there are two somewhat interrelated matters with which to concern ourselves: A correspondence between two types, allowing conversions; and any extra context introduced by performing a conversion. To deal with this fully, we'll make both parts explicit and shuffle them around appropriately. We also need to take heed of variance; lifting an entire function requires working with types in both covariant and contravariant position, so we'll need conversions going in both directions.
Now, given a function we wish to translate, the plan goes something like this:
Convert the function's argument, receiving a new type and some context.
Defer the context onto the function's result, to get the argument how we want it.
Collapse redundant contexts where possible
Recursively translate the function's result, to deal with multi-argument functions
Well, that doesn't sound too difficult. First, explicit contexts:
class (Functor f, Cxt t ~ f) => Context (f :: * -> *) t where
type Collapse t :: *
type Cxt t :: * -> *
collapse :: t -> Collapse t
This says we have a context f, and some type t with that context. The Cxt type function extracts the plain context from t, and Collapse tries to combine contexts if possible. The collapse function lets us use the result of the type function.
For now, we have pure contexts, and IO:
newtype PureCxt a = PureCxt { unwrapPure :: a }
instance Context IO (IO (PureCxt a)) where
type Collapse (IO (PureCxt a)) = IO a
type Cxt (IO (PureCxt a)) = IO
collapse = fmap unwrapPure
{- more instances here... -}
Simple enough. Handling various combinations of contexts is a bit tedious, but the instances are obvious and easy to write.
We'll also need a way to determine the context given a type to convert. Currently the context is the same going in either direction, but it's certainly conceivable for it to be otherwise, so I've treated them separately. Thus, we have two type families, supplying the new outermost context for an import/export conversion:
type family ExpCxt int :: * -> *
type family ImpCxt ext :: * -> *
Some example instances:
type instance ExpCxt () = PureCxt
type instance ImpCxt () = PureCxt
type instance ExpCxt String = IO
type instance ImpCxt CString = IO
Next up, converting individual types. We'll worry about recursion later. Time for another type class:
class (Foreign int ~ ext, Native ext ~ int) => Convert ext int where
type Foreign int :: *
type Native ext :: *
toForeign :: int -> ExpCxt int ext
toNative :: ext -> ImpCxt ext int
This says that two types ext and int are uniquely convertible to each other. I realize that it might not be desirable to always have only one mapping for each type, but I didn't feel like complicating things further (at least, not right now).
As noted, I've also put off handling recursive conversions here; probably they could be combined, but I felt it would be clearer this way. Non-recursive conversions have simple, well-defined mappings that introduce a corresponding context, while recursive conversions need to propagate and merge contexts and deal with distinguishing recursive steps from the base case.
Oh, and you may have noticed by now the funny wiggly tilde business going on up there in the class contexts. That indicates a constraint that the two types must be equal; in this case it ties each type function to the opposite type parameter, which gives the bidirectional nature mentioned above. Er, you probably want to have a fairly recent GHC, though. On older GHCs, this would need functional dependencies instead, and would be written as something like class Convert ext int | ext -> int, int -> ext.
The term-level conversion functions are pretty simple--note the type function application in their result; application is left-associative as always, so that's just applying the context from the earlier type families. Also note the cross-over in names, in that the export context comes from a lookup using the native type.
So, we can convert types that don't need IO:
instance Convert CDouble Double where
type Foreign Double = CDouble
type Native CDouble = Double
toForeign = pure . realToFrac
toNative = pure . realToFrac
...as well as types that do:
instance Convert CString String where
type Foreign String = CString
type Native CString = String
toForeign = newCString
toNative = peekCString
Now to strike at the heart of the matter, and translate whole functions recursively. It should come as no surprise that I've introduced yet another type class. Actually, two, as I've separated import/export conversions this time.
class FFImport ext where
type Import ext :: *
ffImport :: ext -> Import ext
class FFExport int where
type Export int :: *
ffExport :: int -> Export int
Nothing interesting here. You may be noticing a common pattern by now--we're doing roughly equal amounts of computing at both the term and type level, and we're doing them in tandem, even to the point of mimicking names and expression structure. This is pretty common if you're doing type-level calculation for things involving real values, since GHC gets fussy if it doesn't understand what you're doing. Lining things up like this reduces headaches significantly.
Anyway, for each of these classes, we need one instance for each possible base case, and one for the recursive case. Alas, we can't easily have a generic base case, due to the usual bothersome nonsense with overlapping. It could be done using fundeps and type equality conditionals, but... ugh. Maybe later. Another option would be to parameterize the conversion function by a type-level number giving the desired conversion depth, which has the downside of being less automatic, but gains some benefit from being explicit as well, such as being less likely to stumble on polymorphic or ambiguous types.
For now, I'm going to assume that every function ends with something in IO, since IO a is distinguishable from a -> b without overlap.
First, the base case:
instance ( Context IO (IO (ImpCxt a (Native a)))
, Convert a (Native a)
) => FFImport (IO a) where
type Import (IO a) = Collapse (IO (ImpCxt a (Native a)))
ffImport x = collapse $ toNative <$> x
The constraints here assert a specific context using a known instance, and that we have some base type with a conversion. Again, note the parallel structure shared by the type function Import and term function ffImport. The actual idea here should be pretty obvious--we map the conversion function over IO, creating a nested context of some sort, then use Collapse/collapse to clean up afterwards.
The recursive case is similar, but more elaborate:
instance ( FFImport b, Convert a (Native a)
, Context (ExpCxt (Native a)) (ExpCxt (Native a) (Import b))
) => FFImport (a -> b) where
type Import (a -> b) = Native a -> Collapse (ExpCxt (Native a) (Import b))
ffImport f x = collapse $ ffImport . f <$> toForeign x
We've added an FFImport constraint for the recursive call, and the context wrangling has gotten more awkward because we don't know exactly what it is, merely specifying enough to make sure we can deal with it. Note also the contravariance here, in that we're converting the function to native types, but converting the argument to a foreign type. Other than that, it's still pretty simple.
Now, I've left out some instances at this point, but everything else follows the same patterns as the above, so let's just skip to the end and scope out the goods. Some imaginary foreign functions:
foreign_1 :: (CDouble -> CString -> CString -> IO ())
foreign_1 = undefined
foreign_2 :: (CDouble -> SizedArray a -> IO CString)
foreign_2 = undefined
And conversions:
imported1 = ffImport foreign_1
imported2 = ffImport foreign_2
What, no type signatures? Did it work?
> :t imported1
imported1 :: Double -> String -> [Char] -> IO ()
> :t imported2
imported2 :: Foreign.Storable.Storable a => Double -> AsArray a -> IO [Char]
Yep, that's the inferred type. Ah, that's what I like to see.
Edit: For anyone who wants to try this out, I've taken the full code for the demonstration here, cleaned it up a bit, and uploaded it to github.
This can be done with template haskell. In many ways it is simpler than the
alternatives involving classes, since it is easier pattern match on
Language.Haskell.TH.Type than do the same thing with instances.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
-- test.hs
import FFiImport
import Foreign.C
foreign_1 :: CDouble -> CString -> CString -> IO CString
foreign_2 :: CDouble -> CString -> CString -> IO (Int,CString)
foreign_3 :: CString -> IO ()
foreign_1 = undefined; foreign_2 = undefined; foreign_3 = undefined
fmap concat (mapM ffimport ['foreign_1, 'foreign_2, 'foreign_3])
Inferred types of the generated functions are:
imported_foreign_1 :: Double -> String -> String -> IO String
imported_foreign_2 :: Double -> String -> String -> IO (Int, String)
imported_foreign_3 :: String -> IO ()
Checking the generated code by loading test.hs with -ddump-splices (note that
ghc still seems to miss some parentheses in the pretty printing) shows that
foreign_2 writes a definition which after some prettying up looks like:
imported_foreign_2 w x y
= (\ (a, b) -> ((return (,) `ap` return a) `ap` peekCString b) =<<
join
(((return foreign_2 `ap`
(return . (realToFrac :: Double -> CDouble)) w) `ap`
newCString x) `ap`
newCString y))
or translated to do notation:
imported_foreign_2 w x y = do
w2 <- return . (realToFrac :: Double -> CDouble) w
x2 <- newCString x
y2 <- newCString y
(a,b) <- foreign_2 w2 x2 y2
a2 <- return a
b2 <- peekCString b
return (a2,b2)
Generating code the first way is simpler in that there are less variables to
track. While foldl ($) f [x,y,z] doesn't type check when it would mean
((f $ x) $ y $ z) = f x y z
it's acceptable in template haskell which involves only a handful of different
types.
Now for the actual implementation of those ideas:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
-- FFiImport.hs
module FFiImport(ffimport) where
import Language.Haskell.TH; import Foreign.C; import Control.Monad
-- a couple utility definitions
-- args (a -> b -> c -> d) = [a,b,c]
args (AppT (AppT ArrowT x) y) = x : args y
args _ = []
-- result (a -> b -> c -> d) = d
result (AppT (AppT ArrowT _) y) = result y
result y = y
-- con (IO a) = IO
-- con (a,b,c,d) = TupleT 4
con (AppT x _) = con x
con x = x
-- conArgs (a,b,c,d) = [a,b,c,d]
-- conArgs (Either a b) = [a,b]
conArgs ty = go ty [] where
go (AppT x y) acc = go x (y:acc)
go _ acc = acc
The splice $(ffimport 'foreign_2) looks at the type of foreign_2 with reify to
decide on which functions to apply to the arguments or result.
-- Possibly useful to parameterize based on conv'
ffimport :: Name -> Q [Dec]
ffimport n = do
VarI _ ntype _ _ <- reify n
let ty :: [Type]
ty = args ntype
let -- these define conversions
-- (ffiType, (hsType -> IO ffiType, ffiType -> IO hsType))
conv' :: [(TypeQ, (ExpQ, ExpQ))]
conv' = [
([t| CString |], ([| newCString |],
[| peekCString |])),
([t| CDouble |], ([| return . (realToFrac :: Double -> CDouble) |],
[| return . (realToFrac :: CDouble -> Double) |]))
]
sequenceFst :: Monad m => [(m a, b)] -> m [(a,b)]
sequenceFst x = liftM (`zip` map snd x) (mapM fst x)
conv' <- sequenceFst conv'
-- now conv' :: [(Type, (ExpQ, ExpQ))]
Given conv' above, it's somewhat straightforward to apply those functions when
the types match. The back case would be shorter if converting components of
returned tuples wasn't important.
let conv :: Type -- ^ type of v
-> Name -- ^ variable to be converted
-> ExpQ
conv t v
| Just (to,from) <- lookup t conv' =
[| $to $(varE v) |]
| otherwise = [| return $(varE v) |]
-- | function to convert result types back, either
-- occuring as IO a, IO (a,b,c) (for any tuple size)
back :: ExpQ
back
| AppT _ rty <- result ntype,
TupleT n <- con rty,
n > 0, -- for whatever reason $(conE (tupleDataName 0))
-- doesn't work when it could just be $(conE '())
convTup <- map (maybe [| return |] snd .
flip lookup conv')
(conArgs rty)
= do
rs <- replicateM n (newName "r")
lamE [tupP (map varP rs)]
[| $(foldl (\f x -> [| $f `ap` $x |])
[| return $(conE (tupleDataName n)) |]
(zipWith (\c r -> [| $c $(varE r)|]) convTup rs))
|]
| AppT _ nty <- result ntype,
Just (_,from) <- nty `lookup` conv' = from
| otherwise = [| return |]
Finally, put both parts together in a function definition:
vs <- replicateM (length ty) (newName "v")
liftM (:[]) $
funD (mkName $ "imported_"++nameBase n)
[clause
(map varP vs)
(normalB [| $back =<< join
$(foldl (\x y -> [| $x `ap` $y |])
[| return $(varE n) |]
(zipWith conv ty vs))
|])
[]]
Here's a horrible two typeclass solution. The first part (named, unhelpfully, foo) will take things of types like Double -> Double -> CString -> IO () and turn them into things like IO (Double -> IO (Double -> IO (String -> IO ()))). So each conversion is forced into IO just to keep things fully uniform.
The second part, (named cio for "collapse io) will take those things and shove all the IO bits to the end.
class Foo a b | a -> b where
foo :: a -> b
instance Foo (IO a) (IO a) where
foo = id
instance Foo a (IO b) => Foo (CString -> a) (IO (String -> IO b)) where
foo f = return $ \s -> withCString s $ \cs -> foo (f cs)
instance Foo a (IO b) => Foo (Double -> a) (IO (Double -> IO b)) where
foo f = return $ \s -> foo (f s)
class CIO a b | a -> b where
cio :: a -> b
instance CIO (IO ()) (IO ()) where
cio = id
instance CIO (IO b) c => CIO (IO (a -> IO b)) (a -> c) where
cio f = \a -> cio $ f >>= ($ a)
{-
*Main> let x = foo (undefined :: Double -> Double -> CString -> IO ())
*Main> :t x
x :: IO (Double -> IO (Double -> IO (String -> IO ())))
*Main> :t cio x
cio x :: Double -> Double -> String -> IO ()
-}
Aside from being a generally terrible thing to do, there are two specific limitations. The first is that a catchall instance of Foo can't be written. So for every type you want to convert, even if the conversion is just id, you need an instance of Foo. The second limitation is that a catchall base case of CIO can't be written because of the IO wrappers around everything. So this only works for things that return IO (). If you want it to work for something returning IO Int you need to add that instance too.
I suspect that with sufficient work and some typeCast trickery these limitations can be overcome. But the code is horrible enough as is, so I wouldn't recommend it.
It's definitely possible. The usual approach is to create lambdas to pass to withCString. Using your example:
myMarshaller :: (CDouble -> CString -> IO ()) -> CDouble -> String -> IO ()
myMarshaller func cdouble string = ...
withCString :: String -> (CString -> IO a) -> IO a
The inner function has type CString -> IO a, which is exactly the type after applying a CDouble to the C function func. You've got a CDouble in scope too, so that's everything you need.
myMarshaller func cdouble string =
withCString string (\cstring -> func cdouble cstring)
Is there a traditional way to map over a function that uses IO? Specifically, I'd like to map over a function that returns a random value of some kind. Using a normal map will result in an output of type ([IO b]), but to unpack the values in the list from IO, I need a something of type (IO [b]). So I wrote...
mapIO :: (a -> IO b) -> [a] -> [b] -> IO [b]
mapIO f [] acc = do return acc
mapIO f (x:xs) acc = do
new <- f x
mapIO f xs (new:acc)
... which works fine. But it seems like there ought to be a solution for this built into Haskell. For instance, an example use case:
getPercent :: Int -> IO Bool
getPercent x = do
y <- getStdRandom (randomR (1,100))
return $ y < x
mapIO (\f -> getPercent 50) [0..10] []
The standard way is via:
Control.Monad.mapM :: (Monad m) => (a -> m b) -> [a] -> m [b]
which is implemented in terms of sequence:
sequence :: (Monad m) => [m a] -> m [a]
Just to add to Don's answer, hake a look to the mapM_ function as well, which does exactly what mapM does but discards all the results so you get only side-effects.
This is useful if you want the have computations executed (for example IO computations) but are not interested in the result (for example, unlinking files).
And also see forM and forM_.