Related
I am new to the Haskell programming language, I keep on stumbling on the IO type either as a function parameter or a return type.
playGame :: Screen -> IO ()
OR
gameRunner :: IO String -> (String -> IO ()) -> Screen -> IO ()
How does this work, I am a bit confused because I know a String expects words and an Int expects numbers. Whats does the IO used in functions expect or Return?
IO is the way how Haskell differentiates between code that is referentially transparent and code that is not. IO a is the type of an IO action that returns an a.
You can think of an IO action as a piece of code with some effect on the real world that waits to get executed. Because of this side effect, an IO action is not referentially transparent; therefore, execution order matters. It is the task of the main function of a Haskell program to properly sequence and execute all IO actions. Thus, when you write a function that returns IO a, what you are actually doing is writing a function that returns an action that eventually - when executed by main - performs the action and returns an a.
Some more explanation:
Referential transparency means that you can replace a function by its value. A referentially transparent function cannot have any side effects; in particular, a referentially transparent function cannot access any hardware resources like files, network, or keyboard, because the function value would depend on something else than its parameters.
Referentially transparent functions in a functional language like Haskell are like math functions (mappings between domain and codomain), much more than a sequence of imperative instructions on how to compute the function's value. Therefore, Haskell code says the compiler that a function is applied to its arguments, but it does not say that a function is called and thus actually computed.
Therefore, referentially transparent functions do not imply the order of execution. The Haskell compiler is free to evaluate functions in any way it sees fit - or not evaluate them at all if it is not necessary (called lazy evaluation). The only ordering arises from data dependencies, when one function requires the output of another function as input.
Real-world side effects are not referentially transparent. You can think of the real world as some sort of implicit global state that effectual functions mutate. Because of this state, the order of execution matters: It makes a difference if you first read from a database and then update it, or vice versa.
Haskell is a pure functional language, all its functions are referentially transparent and compilation rests on this guarantee. How, then, can we deal with effectful functions that manipulate some global real-world state and that need to be executed in a certain order? By introducing data dependency between those functions.
This is exactly what IO does: Under the hood, the IO type wraps an effectful function together with a dummy state paramter. Each IO action takes this dummy state as input and provides it as output. Passing this dummy state parameter from one IO action to the next creates a data dependency and thus tells the Haskell compiler how to properly sequence all the IO actions.
You don't see the dummy state parameter because it is hidden behind some syntactic sugar: the do notation in main and other IO actions, and inside the IO type.
Briefly put:
f1 :: A -> B -> C
is a function which takes two arguments of type A and B and returns a C. It does not perform any IO.
f2 :: A -> B -> IO C
is similar to f1, but can also perform IO.
f3 :: (A -> B) -> IO C
takes as an argument a function A -> B (which does not perform IO) and produces a C, possibly performing IO.
f4 :: (A -> IO B) -> IO C
takes as an argument a function A -> IO B (which can perform IO) and produces a C, possibly performing IO.
f5 :: A -> IO B -> IO C
takes as an argument a value of type A, an IO action of type IO B, and returns a value of type C, possibly performing IO (e.g. by running the IO action argument one or more times).
Example:
f6 :: IO Int -> IO Int
f6 action = do
x1 <- action
x2 <- action
putStrLn "hello!"
x3 <- action
return (x1+x2+x3)
When a function returns IO (), it returns no useful value, but can perform IO. Similar to, say, returning void in C or Java. Your
gameRunner :: IO String -> (String -> IO ()) -> Screen -> IO ()
function can be called with the following arguments:
arg1 :: IO String
arg1 = do
putStrLn "hello"
s <- readLine
return ("here: " ++ s)
arg2 :: String -> IO ()
arg2 str = do
putStrLn "hello"
putStrLn str
putStrLn "hello again"
arg3 :: Screen
arg3 = ... -- I don't know what's a Screen in your context
Let's try answering some simpler questions first:
What is the Maybe type in Haskell?
From chapter 21 (page 205) of the Haskell 2010 Report:
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
it's a simple partial type - you have a value (conveyed via Just) or you don't (Nothing).
How does this work?
Let's look at one possible Monad instance for Maybe:
instance Monad Maybe where
return = Just
Just x >>= k = k x
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing
This monadic interface simplifies the use of values based on Maybe constructors e.g.
instead of:
\f ox oy -> case ox of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just x -> case oy of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just y -> Just (f x y)
you can simply write this:
\f ox oy -> ox >>= \x -> oy >>= \y -> return (f x y)
The monadic interface is widely applicable: from parsing to encapsulated state, and so much more.
What does the Maybe type used in functions expect or return?
For a function expecting a Maybe-based value e.g:
maybe :: b -> (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> b
maybe _ f (Just x) = f x
maybe d _ Nothing = d
if its contents are being used in the function, then the function may have to deal with not receiving a value it can use i.e. Nothing.
For a function returning a Maybe-based value e.g:
invert :: Double -> Maybe Double
invert 0.0 = Nothing
invert d = Just (1/d)
it just needs to use the appropriate constructors.
One last point: observe how Maybe-based values are used - from starting simply (e.g. invert 0.5 or Just "here") to then define other, possibly more-elaborate Maybe-based values (with (>>=), (>>), etc) to ultimately be examined directly by pattern-matching, or abstractly by a suitable definition (maybe, fromJust et al).
Time for the original questions:
What is the IO type in Haskell?
From section 6.1.7 (page 75) of the Report:
The IO type serves as a tag for operations (actions) that interact with the outside world. The IO type is abstract: no constructors are visible to the user. IO is an instance of the Monad and Functor classes.
the crucial point being:
The IO type is abstract: no constructors are visible to the user.
No constructors? That begs the next question:
How does this work?
This is where the versatility of the monadic interface steps in: the flexibility of its two key operatives - return and (>>=) in Haskell - substantially make up for IO-based values being
abstract.
Remember that observation about how Maybe-based values are used? Well, IO-based values are used in similar fashion - starting simply (e.g. return 1, getChar or putStrLn "Hello, there!") to defining other IO-based values (with (>>=), (>>), catch, etc) to ultimately form Main.main.
But instead of pattern-matching or calling another function to extract its contents, Main.main is
processed directly by the Haskell implementation.
What does the IO used in functions expect or return?
For a function expecting a IO-based value e.g:
echo :: IO ()
echo :: getChar >>= \c -> if c == '\n'
then return ()
else putChar c >> echo
if its contents are being used in the function, then the function usually returns an IO-based value.
For a function returning a IO-based value e.g:
newLine :: IO ()
newLine = putChar '\n'
it just needs to use the appropriate definitions.
Though it is okay to bind IO [[Char]] and IO () but its not allowed to bind Maybe with IO. Can someone give an example how this relaxation would lead to a bad design? Why freedom in the polymorphic type of Monad is allowed though not the Monad itself?
There are a lot of good theoretical reasons, including "that's not what Monad is." But let's step away from that for a moment and just look at the implementation details.
First off - Monad isn't magic. It's just a standard type class. Instances of Monad only get created when someone writes one.
Writing that instance is what defines how (>>) works. Usually it's done implicitly through the default definition in terms of (>>=), but that just is evidence that (>>=) is the more general operator, and writing it requires making all the same decisions that writing (>>) would take.
If you had a different operator that worked on more general types, you have to answer two questions. First, what would the types be? Second, how would you go about providing implementations? It's really not clear what the desired types would be, from your question. One of the following, I guess:
class Poly1 m n where
(>>) :: m a -> n b -> m b
class Poly2 m n where
(>>) :: m a -> n b -> n b
class Poly3 m n o | m n -> o where
(>>) :: m a -> n b -> o b
All of them could be implemented. But you lose two really important factors for using them practically.
You need to write an instance for every pair of types you plan to use together. This is a massively more complex undertaking than just an instance for each type. Something about n vs n^2.
You lose predictability. What does the operation even do? Here's where theory and practice intersect. The theory behind Monad places a lot of restrictions on the operations. Those restrictions are referred to as the "monad laws". They are beyond the ability to verify in Haskell, but any Monad instance that doesn't obey them is considered to be buggy. The end result is that you quickly can build an intuition for what the Monad operations do and don't do. You can use them without looking up the details of every type involved, because you know properties that they obey. None of those possible classes I suggested give you any kind of assurances like that. You just have no idea what they do.
I’m not sure that I understand your question correctly, but it’s definitely possible to compose Maybe with IO or [] in the same sense that you can compose IO with [].
For example, if you check the types in GHCI using :t,
getContents >>= return . lines
gives you an IO [String]. If you add
>>= return . map Text.Read.readMaybe
you get a type of IO [Maybe a], which is a composition of IO, [] and Maybe. You could then pass it to
>>= return . Data.Maybe.catMaybes
to flatten it to an IO [a]. Then you might pass the list of parsed valid input lines to a function that flattens it again and computes an output.
Putting this together, the program
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
import Data.Maybe (catMaybes)
main :: IO ()
main = getContents >>= -- IO String
return . lines >>= -- IO [String]
return . map readMaybe >>= -- IO [Maybe Int]
return . catMaybes >>= -- IO [Int]
return . (sum :: [Int] -> Int) >>= -- IO Int
print -- IO ()
with the input:
1
2
Ignore this!
3
prints 6.
It would also be possible to work with an IO (Maybe [String]), a Maybe [IO String], etc.
You can do this with >> as well. Contrived example: getContents >> (return . Just) False reads the input, ignores it, and gives you back an IO (Maybe Bool).
This is a type declaration of a bind method:
(>>=) :: (Monad m) => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
I read this as follows: apply a function that returns a wrapped value, to a wrapped value.
This method was included to Prelude as part of Monad typeclass. That means there are a lot of cases where it's needed.
OK, but I don't understand why it's a typical solution of a typical case at all.
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
In other words, what are typical cases where there are many functions which take a normal value, but return a wrapped value? (instead of taking a wrapped value and return a wrapped value)
The 'unwrapping' of values is exactly what you want to keep hidden when dealing with monads, since it is this that causes a lot of boilerplate.
For example, if you have a sequence of operations which return Maybe values that you want to combine, you have to manually propagate Nothing if you receive one:
nested :: a -> Maybe b
nested x = case f x of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just r ->
case g r of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just r' ->
case h r' of
Nothing -> Nothing
r'' -> i r''
This is what bind does for you:
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing
Just a >>= f = f a
so you can just write:
nested x = f x >>= g >>= h >>= i
Some monads don't allow you to manually unpack the values at all - the most common example is IO. The only way to get the value from an IO is to map or >>= and both of these require you to propagate IO in the output.
Everyone focuses on IO monad and inability to "unwrap".
But a Monad is not always a container, so you can't unwrap.
Reader r a == r->a such that (Reader r) is a Monad
to my mind is the simplest best example of a Monad that is not a container.
You can easily write a function that can produce m b given a: a->(r->b). But you can't easily "unwrap" the value from m a, because a is not wrapped in it. Monad is a type-level concept.
Also, notice that if you have m a->m b, you don't have a Monad. What Monad gives you, is a way to build a function m a->m b from a->m b (compare: Functor gives you a way to build a function m a->m b from a->b; ApplicativeFunctor gives you a way to build a function m a->m b from m (a->b))
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
Because that function would have to unwrap its argument in order to do something with it.
But for many choices of m, you can only unwrap a value if you will eventually rewrap your own result. This idea of "unwrap, do something, then rewrap" is embodied in the (>>=) function which unwraps for you, let's you do something, and forces you to rewrap by the type a -> m b.
To understand why you cannot unwrap without eventually rewrapping, we can look at some examples:
If m a = Maybe a, unwrapping for Just x would be easy: just return x. But how can we unwrap Nothing? We cannot. But if we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can skip the "do something" step and return Nothing for the overall operation.
If m a = [a], unwrapping for [x] would be easy: just return x. But for unwrapping [], we need the same trick as for Maybe a. And what about unwrapping [x, y, z]? If we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can execute the "do something" three times, for x, y and z and concat the results into a single list.
If m a = IO a, no unwrapping is easy because we only know the result sometimes in the future, when we actually run the IO action. But if we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can store the "do something" inside the IO action and perform it later, when we execute the IO action.
I hope these examples make it clear that for many interesting choices of m, we can only implement unwrapping if we know that we are going to rewrap. The type of (>>=) allows precisely this assumption, so it is cleverly chosen to make things work.
While (>>=) can sometimes be useful when used directly, its main purpose is to implement the <- bind syntax in do notation. It has the type m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b mainly because, when used in a do notation block, the right hand side of the <- is of type m a, the left hand side "binds" an a to the given identifier and, when combined with remainder of the do block, is of type a -> m b, the resulting monadic action is of type m b, and this is the only type it possibly could have to make this work.
For example:
echo = do
input <- getLine
putStrLn input
The right hand side of the <- is of type IO String
The left hands side of the <- with the remainder of the do block are of type String -> IO (). Compare with the desugared version using >>=:
echo = getLine >>= (\input -> putStrLn input)
The left hand side of the >>= is of type IO String. The right hand side is of type String -> IO (). Now, by applying an eta reduction to the lambda we can instead get:
echo = getLine >>= putStrLn
which shows why >>= is sometimes used directly rather than as the "engine" that powers do notation along with >>.
I'd also like to provide what I think is an important correction to the concept of "unwrapping" a monadic value, which is that it doesn't happen. The Monad class does not provide a generic function of type Monad m => m a -> a. Some particular instances do but this is not a feature of monads in general. Monads, generally speaking, cannot be "unwrapped".
Remember that m >>= k = join (fmap k m) is a law that must be true for any monad. Any particular implementation of >>= must satisfy this law and so must be equivalent to this general implementation.
What this means is that what really happens is that the monadic "computation" a -> m b is "lifted" to become an m a -> m (m b) using fmap and then applied the m a, giving an m (m b); and then join :: m (m a) -> m a is used to squish the two ms together to yield a m b. So the a never gets "out" of the monad. The monad is never "unwrapped". This is an incorrect way to think about monads and I would strongly recommend that you not get in the habit.
I will focus on your point
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why
that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
and the IO monad. Suppose you had
getLine :: IO String
putStrLn :: IO String -> IO () -- "already takes a wrapped value"
how one could write a program which reads a line and print it twice? An attempt would be
let line = getLine
in putStrLn line >> putStrLn line
but equational reasoning dictates that this is equivalent to
putStrLn getLine >> putStrLn getLine
which reads two lines instead.
What we lack is a way to "unwrap" the getLine once, and use it twice. The same issue would apply to reading a line, printing "hello", and then printing a line:
let line = getLine in putStrLn "hello" >> putStrLn line
-- equivalent to
putStrLn "hello" >> putStrLn getLine
So, we also lack a way to specify "when to unwrap" the getLine. The bind >>= operator provides a way to do this.
A more advanced theoretical note
If you swap the arguments around the (>>=) bind operator becomes (=<<)
(=<<) :: (a -> m b) -> (m a -> m b)
which turns any function f taking an unwrapped value into a function g taking a wrapped
value. Such g is known as the Kleisli extension of f. The bind operator guarantees
such an extension always exists, and provides a convenient way to use it.
Because we like to be able to apply functions like a -> b to our m as. Lifting such a function to m a -> m b is trivial (liftM, liftA, >>= return ., fmap) but the opposite is not necessarily possible.
You want some typical examples? How about putStrLn :: String -> IO ()? It would make no sense for this function to have the type IO String -> IO () because the origin of the string doesn't matter.
Anyway: You might have the wrong idea because of your "wrapped value" metaphor; I use it myself quite often, but it has its limitations. There isn't necessarily a pure way to get an a out of an m a - for example, if you have a getLine :: IO String, there's not a great deal of interesting things you can do with it - you can put it in a list, chain it in a row and other neat things, but you can't get any useful information out of it because you can't look inside an IO action. What you can do is use >>= which gives you a way to use the result of the action.
Similar things apply to monads where the "wrapping" metaphor applies too; For example the point Maybe monad is to avoid manually wrapping and unwrapping values with and from Just all the time.
My two most common examples:
1) I have a series of functions that generate a list of lists, but I finally need a flat list:
f :: a -> [a]
fAppliedThrice :: [a] -> [a]
fAppliedThrice aList = concat (map f (concat (map f (concat (map f a)))))
fAppliedThrice' :: [a] -> [a]
fAppliedThrice' aList = aList >>= f >>= f >>= f
A practical example of using this was when my functions fetched attributes of a foreign key relationship. I could just chain them together to finally obtain a flat list of attributes. Eg: Product hasMany Review hasMany Tag type relationship, and I finally want a list of all the tag names for a product. (I added some template-haskell and got a very good generic attribute fetcher for my purposes).
2) Say you have a series of filter-like functions to apply to some data. And they return Maybe values.
case (val >>= filter >>= filter2 >>= filter3) of
Nothing -> putStrLn "Bad data"
Just x -> putStrLn "Good data"
I thought I had a good handle on Haskell Monads until I realized this very simple piece of code made no sense to me (this is from the haskell wiki about the State monad):
playGame :: String -> State GameState GameValue
playGame [] = do
(_, score) <- get
return score
What confuses me is, why is the code allowed to call "get", when the only argument supplied is a string? It seems almost like it is pulling the value out of thin air.
A better way for me to ask the question may be, how would one rewrite this function using >>= and lambda's instead of do notation? I'm unable to figure it out myself.
Desugaring this into do notation would look like
playGame [] =
get >>= \ (_, score) ->
return score
We could also just write this with fmap
playGame [] = fmap (\(_, score) -> score) get
playGame [] = fmap snd get
Now the trick is to realize that get is a value like any other with the type
State s s
What get will return won't be determined until we feed our computation to runState or similar where we provide an explicit starting value for our state.
If we simplify this further and get rid of the state monad we'd have
playGame :: String -> (GameState -> (GameState, GameValue))
playGame [] = \gamestate -> (gamestate, snd gamestate)
The state monad is just wrapping around all of this manual passing of GameState but you can think of get as accessing the value that our "function" was passed.
A monad is a "thing" which takes a context (we call it m) and which "produces" a value, while still respecting the monad laws. We can think of this in terms of being "inside" and "outside" of the monad. The monad laws tell us how to deal with a "round trip" -- going outside and then coming back inside. In particular, the laws tell us that m (m a) is essentially the same type as (m a).
The point is that a monad is a generalization of this round-tripping thing. join squashes (m (m a))'s into (m a)'s, and (>>=) pulls a value out of the monad and applies a function into the monad. Put another way, it applies a function (f :: a -> m b) to the a in (m a) -- which yields an (m (m b)), and then squashes that via join to get our (m b).
So what does this have to do with 'get' and objects?
Well, do notation sets us up so that the result of a computation is in our monad. And (<-) lets us pull a value out of a monad, so that we can bind it to a function, while still nominally being inside of the monad. So, for example:
doStuff = do
a <- get
b <- get
return $ (a + b)
Notice that a and b are pure. They are "outside" of the get, because we actually peeked inside it. But now that we have a value outside of the monad, we need to do something with it (+) and then stick it back in the monad.
This is just a little bit of suggestive notation, but it might be nice if we could do:
doStuff = do
a <- get
b <- get
(a + b) -> (\x -> return x)
to really emphasize the back and forth of it. When you finish a monad action, you must be on the right column in that table, because when the action is done, 'join' will get called to flatten the layers. (At least, conceptually)
Oh, right, objects. Well, obviously, an OO language basically lives and breathes in an IO monad of some kind. But we can actually break it down some more. When you run something along the lines of:
x = foo.bar.baz.bin()
you are basically running a monad transformer stack, which takes an IO context, which produces a foo context, which produces a bar context, which produces a baz context, which produces a bin context. And then the runtime system "calls" join on this thing as many times as needed. Notice how well this idea meshes with "call stacks". And indeed, this is why it is called a "monad transformer stack" on the haskell side. It is a stack of monadic contexts.
I am learning Haskell and trying to understand Monads. I have two questions:
From what I understand, Monad is just another typeclass that declares ways to interact with data inside "containers", including Maybe, List, and IO. It seems clever and clean to implement these 3 things with one concept, but really, the point is so there can be clean error handling in a chain of functions, containers, and side effects. Is this a correct interpretation?
How exactly is the problem of side-effects solved? With this concept of containers, the language essentially says anything inside the containers is non-deterministic (such as i/o). Because lists and IOs are both containers, lists are equivalence-classed with IO, even though values inside lists seem pretty deterministic to me. So what is deterministic and what has side-effects? I can't wrap my head around the idea that a basic value is deterministic, until you stick it in a container (which is no special than the same value with some other values next to it, e.g. Nothing) and it can now be random.
Can someone explain how, intuitively, Haskell gets away with changing state with inputs and output? I'm not seeing the magic here.
The point is so there can be clean error handling in a chain of functions, containers, and side effects. Is this a correct interpretation?
Not really. You've mentioned a lot of concepts that people cite when trying to explain monads, including side effects, error handling and non-determinism, but it sounds like you've gotten the incorrect sense that all of these concepts apply to all monads. But there's one concept you mentioned that does: chaining.
There are two different flavors of this, so I'll explain it two different ways: one without side effects, and one with side effects.
No Side Effects:
Take the following example:
addM :: (Monad m, Num a) => m a -> m a -> m a
addM ma mb = do
a <- ma
b <- mb
return (a + b)
This function adds two numbers, with the twist that they are wrapped in some monad. Which monad? Doesn't matter! In all cases, that special do syntax de-sugars to the following:
addM ma mb =
ma >>= \a ->
mb >>= \b ->
return (a + b)
... or, with operator precedence made explicit:
ma >>= (\a -> mb >>= (\b -> return (a + b)))
Now you can really see that this is a chain of little functions, all composed together, and its behavior will depend on how >>= and return are defined for each monad. If you're familiar with polymorphism in object-oriented languages, this is essentially the same thing: one common interface with multiple implementations. It's slightly more mind-bending than your average OOP interface, since the interface represents a computation policy rather than, say, an animal or a shape or something.
Okay, let's see some examples of how addM behaves across different monads. The Identity monad is a decent place to start, since its definition is trivial:
instance Monad Identity where
return a = Identity a -- create an Identity value
(Identity a) >>= f = f a -- apply f to a
So what happens when we say:
addM (Identity 1) (Identity 2)
Expanding this, step by step:
(Identity 1) >>= (\a -> (Identity 2) >>= (\b -> return (a + b)))
(\a -> (Identity 2) >>= (\b -> return (a + b)) 1
(Identity 2) >>= (\b -> return (1 + b))
(\b -> return (1 + b)) 2
return (1 + 2)
Identity 3
Great. Now, since you mentioned clean error handling, let's look at the Maybe monad. Its definition is only slightly trickier than Identity:
instance Monad Maybe where
return a = Just a -- same as Identity monad!
(Just a) >>= f = f a -- same as Identity monad again!
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing -- the only real difference from Identity
So you can imagine that if we say addM (Just 1) (Just 2) we'll get Just 3. But for grins, let's expand addM Nothing (Just 1) instead:
Nothing >>= (\a -> (Just 1) >>= (\b -> return (a + b)))
Nothing
Or the other way around, addM (Just 1) Nothing:
(Just 1) >>= (\a -> Nothing >>= (\b -> return (a + b)))
(\a -> Nothing >>= (\b -> return (a + b)) 1
Nothing >>= (\b -> return (1 + b))
Nothing
So the Maybe monad's definition of >>= was tweaked to account for failure. When a function is applied to a Maybe value using >>=, you get what you'd expect.
Okay, so you mentioned non-determinism. Yes, the list monad can be thought of as modeling non-determinism in a sense... It's a little weird, but think of the list as representing alternative possible values: [1, 2, 3] is not a collection, it's a single non-deterministic number that could be either one, two or three. That sounds dumb, but it starts to make some sense when you think about how >>= is defined for lists: it applies the given function to each possible value. So addM [1, 2] [3, 4] is actually going to compute all possible sums of those two non-deterministic values: [4, 5, 5, 6].
Okay, now to address your second question...
Side Effects:
Let's say you apply addM to two values in the IO monad, like:
addM (return 1 :: IO Int) (return 2 :: IO Int)
You don't get anything special, just 3 in the IO monad. addM does not read or write any mutable state, so it's kind of no fun. Same goes for the State or ST monads. No fun. So let's use a different function:
fireTheMissiles :: IO Int -- returns the number of casualties
Clearly the world will be different each time missiles are fired. Clearly. Now let's say you're trying to write some totally innocuous, side effect free, non-missile-firing code. Perhaps you're trying once again to add two numbers, but this time without any monads flying around:
add :: Num a => a -> a -> a
add a b = a + b
and all of a sudden your hand slips, and you accidentally typo:
add a b = a + b + fireTheMissiles
An honest mistake, really. The keys were so close together. Fortunately, because fireTheMissiles was of type IO Int rather than simply Int, the compiler is able to avert disaster.
Okay, totally contrived example, but the point is that in the case of IO, ST and friends, the type system keeps effects isolated to some specific context. It doesn't magically eliminate side effects, making code referentially transparent that shouldn't be, but it does make it clear at compile time what scope the effects are limited to.
So getting back to the original point: what does this have to do with chaining or composition of functions? Well, in this case, it's just a handy way of expressing a sequence of effects:
fireTheMissilesTwice :: IO ()
fireTheMissilesTwice = do
a <- fireTheMissiles
print a
b <- fireTheMissiles
print b
Summary:
A monad represents some policy for chaining computations. Identity's policy is pure function composition, Maybe's policy is function composition with failure propogation, IO's policy is impure function composition and so on.
Let me start by pointing at the excellent "You could have invented monads" article. It illustrates how the Monad structure can naturally manifest while you are writing programs. But the tutorial doesn't mention IO, so I will have a stab here at extending the approach.
Let us start with what you probably have already seen - the container monad. Let's say we have:
f, g :: Int -> [Int]
One way of looking at this is that it gives us a number of possible outputs for every possible input. What if we want all possible outputs for the composition of both functions? Giving all possibilities we could get by applying the functions one after the other?
Well, there's a function for that:
fg x = concatMap g $ f x
If we put this more general, we get
fg x = f x >>= g
xs >>= f = concatMap f xs
return x = [x]
Why would we want to wrap it like this? Well, writing our programs primarily using >>= and return gives us some nice properties - for example, we can be sure that it's relatively hard to "forget" solutions. We'd explicitly have to reintroduce it, say by adding another function skip. And also we now have a monad and can use all combinators from the monad library!
Now, let us jump to your trickier example. Let's say the two functions are "side-effecting". That's not non-deterministic, it just means that in theory the whole world is both their input (as it can influence them) as well as their output (as the function can influence it). So we get something like:
f, g :: Int -> RealWorld# -> (Int, RealWorld#)
If we now want f to get the world that g left behind, we'd write:
fg x rw = let (y, rw') = f x rw
(r, rw'') = g y rw'
in (r, rw'')
Or generalized:
fg x = f x >>= g
x >>= f = \rw -> let (y, rw') = x rw
(r, rw'') = f y rw'
in (r, rw'')
return x = \rw -> (x, rw)
Now if the user can only use >>=, return and a few pre-defined IO values we get a nice property again: The user will never actually see the RealWorld# getting passed around! And that is a very good thing, as you aren't really interested in the details of where getLine gets its data from. And again we get all the nice high-level functions from the monad libraries.
So the important things to take away:
The monad captures common patterns in your code, like "always pass all elements of container A to container B" or "pass this real-world-tag through". Often, once you realize that there is a monad in your program, complicated things become simply applications of the right monad combinator.
The monad allows you to completely hide the implementation from the user. It is an excellent encapsulation mechanism, be it for your own internal state or for how IO manages to squeeze non-purity into a pure program in a relatively safe way.
Appendix
In case someone is still scratching his head over RealWorld# as much as I did when I started: There's obviously more magic going on after all the monad abstraction has been removed. Then the compiler will make use of the fact that there can only ever be one "real world". That's good news and bad news:
It follows that the compiler must guarantuee execution ordering between functions (which is what we were after!)
But it also means that actually passing the real world isn't necessary as there is only one we could possibly mean: The one that is current when the function gets executed!
Bottom line is that once execution order is fixed, RealWorld# simply gets optimized out. Therefore programs using the IO monad actually have zero runtime overhead. Also note that using RealWorld# is obviously only one possible way to put IO - but it happens to be the one GHC uses internally. The good thing about monads is that, again, the user really doesn't need to know.
You could see a given monad m as a set/family (or realm, domain, etc.) of actions (think of a C statement). The monad m defines the kind of (side-)effects that its actions may have:
with [] you can define actions which can fork their executions in different "independent parallel worlds";
with Either Foo you can define actions which can fail with errors of type Foo;
with IO you can define actions which can have side-effects on the "outside world" (access files, network, launch processes, do a HTTP GET ...);
you can have a monad whose effect is "randomness" (see package MonadRandom);
you can define a monad whose actions can make a move in a game (say chess, Go…) and receive move from an opponent but are not able to write to your filesystem or anything else.
Summary
If m is a monad, m a is an action which produces a result/output of type a.
The >> and >>= operators are used to create more complex actions out of simpler ones:
a >> b is a macro-action which does action a and then action b;
a >> a does action a and then action a again;
with >>= the second action can depend on the output of the first one.
The exact meaning of what an action is and what doing an action and then another one is depends on the monad: each monad defines an imperative sublanguage with some features/effects.
Simple sequencing (>>)
Let's say with have a given monad M and some actions incrementCounter, decrementCounter, readCounter:
instance M Monad where ...
-- Modify the counter and do not produce any result:
incrementCounter :: M ()
decrementCounter :: M ()
-- Get the current value of the counter
readCounter :: M Integer
Now we would like to do something interesting with those actions. The first thing we would like to do with those actions is to sequence them. As in say C, we would like to be able to do:
// This is C:
counter++;
counter++;
We define an "sequencing operator" >>. Using this operator we can write:
incrementCounter >> incrementCounter
What is the type of "incrementCounter >> incrementCounter"?
It is an action made of two smaller actions like in C you can write composed-statements from atomic statements :
// This is a macro statement made of several statements
{
counter++;
counter++;
}
// and we can use it anywhere we may use a statement:
if (condition) {
counter++;
counter++;
}
it can have the same kind of effects as its subactions;
it does not produce any output/result.
So we would like incrementCounter >> incrementCounter to be of type M (): an (macro-)action with the same kind of possible effects but without any output.
More generally, given two actions:
action1 :: M a
action2 :: M b
we define a a >> b as the macro-action which is obtained by doing (whatever that means in our domain of action) a then b and produces as output the result of the execution of the second action. The type of >> is:
(>>) :: M a -> M b -> M b
or more generally:
(>>) :: (Monad m) => m a -> m b -> m b
We can define bigger sequence of actions from simpler ones:
action1 >> action2 >> action3 >> action4
Input and outputs (>>=)
We would like to be able to increment by something else that 1 at a time:
incrementBy 5
We want to provide some input in our actions, in order to do this we define a function incrementBy taking an Int and producing an action:
incrementBy :: Int -> M ()
Now we can write things like:
incrementCounter >> readCounter >> incrementBy 5
But we have no way to feed the output of readCounter into incrementBy. In order to do this, a slightly more powerful version of our sequencing operator is needed. The >>= operator can feed the output of a given action as input to the next action. We can write:
readCounter >>= incrementBy
It is an action which executes the readCounter action, feeds its output in the incrementBy function and then execute the resulting action.
The type of >>= is:
(>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
A (partial) example
Let's say I have a Prompt monad which can only display informations (text) to the user and ask informations to the user:
-- We don't have access to the internal structure of the Prompt monad
module Prompt (Prompt(), echo, prompt) where
-- Opaque
data Prompt a = ...
instance Monad Prompt where ...
-- Display a line to the CLI:
echo :: String -> Prompt ()
-- Ask a question to the user:
prompt :: String -> Prompt String
Let's try to define a promptBoolean message actions which asks for a question and produces a boolean value.
We use the prompt (message ++ "[y/n]") action and feed its output to a function f:
f "y" should be an action which does nothing but produce True as output;
f "n" should be an action which does nothing but produce False as output;
anything else should restart the action (do the action again);
promptBoolean would look like this:
-- Incomplete version, some bits are missing:
promptBoolean :: String -> M Boolean
promptBoolean message = prompt (message ++ "[y/n]") >>= f
where f result = if result == "y"
then ???? -- We need here an action which does nothing but produce `True` as output
else if result=="n"
then ???? -- We need here an action which does nothing but produce `False` as output
else echo "Input not recognised, try again." >> promptBoolean
Producing a value without effect (return)
In order to fill the missing bits in our promptBoolean function, we need a way to represent dummy actions without any side effect but which only outputs a given value:
-- "return 5" is an action which does nothing but outputs 5
return :: (Monad m) => a -> m a
and we can now write out promptBoolean function:
promptBoolean :: String -> Prompt Boolean
promptBoolean message :: prompt (message ++ "[y/n]") >>= f
where f result = if result=="y"
then return True
else if result=="n"
then return False
else echo "Input not recognised, try again." >> promptBoolean message
By composing those two simple actions (promptBoolean, echo) we can define any kind of dialogue between the user and your program (the actions of the program are deterministic as our monad does not have a "randomness effect").
promptInt :: String -> M Int
promptInt = ... -- similar
-- Classic "guess a number game/dialogue"
guess :: Int -> m()
guess n = promptInt "Guess:" m -> f
where f m = if m == n
then echo "Found"
else (if m > n
then echo "Too big"
then echo "Too small") >> guess n
The operations of a monad
A Monad is a set of actions which can be composed with the return and >>= operators:
>>= for action composition;
return for producing a value without any (side-)effect.
These two operators are the minimal operators needed to define a Monad.
In Haskell, the >> operator is needed as well but it can in fact be derived from >>=:
(>>): Monad m => m a -> m b -> m b
a >> b = a >>= f
where f x = b
In Haskell, an extra fail operator is need as well but this is really a hack (and it might be removed from Monad in the future).
This is the Haskell definition of a Monad:
class Monad m where
return :: m a
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
(>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b -- can be derived from (>>=)
fail :: String -> m a -- mostly a hack
Actions are first-class
One great thing about monads is that actions are first-class. You can take them in a variable, you can define function which take actions as input and produce some other actions as output. For example, we can define a while operator:
-- while x y : does action y while action x output True
while :: (Monad m) => m Boolean -> m a -> m ()
while x y = x >>= f
where f True = y >> while x y
f False = return ()
Summary
A Monad is a set of actions in some domain. The monad/domain define the kind of "effects" which are possible. The >> and >>= operators represent sequencing of actions and monadic expression may be used to represent any kind of "imperative (sub)program" in your (functional) Haskell program.
The great things are that:
you can design your own Monad which supports the features and effects that you want
see Prompt for an example of a "dialogue only subprogram",
see Rand for an example of "sampling only subprogram";
you can write your own control structures (while, throw, catch or more exotic ones) as functions taking actions and composing them in some way to produce a bigger macro-actions.
MonadRandom
A good way of understanding monads, is the MonadRandom package. The Rand monad is made of actions whose output can be random (the effect is randomness). An action in this monad is some kind of random variable (or more exactly a sampling process):
-- Sample an Int from some distribution
action :: Rand Int
Using Rand to do some sampling/random algorithms is quite interesting because you have random variables as first class values:
-- Estimate mean by sampling nsamples times the random variable x
sampleMean :: Real a => Int -> m a -> m a
sampleMean n x = ...
In this setting, the sequence function from Prelude,
sequence :: Monad m => [m a] -> m [a]
becomes
sequence :: [Rand a] -> Rand [a]
It creates a random variable obtained by sampling independently from a list of random variables.
There are three main observations concerning the IO monad:
1) You can't get values out of it. Other types like Maybe might allow to extract values, but neither the monad class interface itself nor the IO data type allow it.
2) "Inside" IO is not only the real value but also that "RealWorld" thing. This dummy value is used to enforce the chaining of actions by the type system: If you have two independent calculations, the use of >>= makes the second calculation dependent on the first.
3) Assume a non-deterministic thing like random :: () -> Int, which isn't allowed in Haskell. If you change the signature to random :: Blubb -> (Blubb, Int), it is allowed, if you make sure that nobody ever can use a Blubb twice: Because in that case all inputs are "different", it is no problem that the outputs are different as well.
Now we can use the fact 1): Nobody can get something out of IO, so we can use the RealWord dummy hidden in IO to serve as a Blubb. There is only one IOin the whole application (the one we get from main), and it takes care of proper sequentiation, as we have seen in 2). Problem solved.
One thing that often helps me to understand the nature of something is to examine it in the most trivial way possible. That way, I'm not getting distracted by potentially unrelated concepts. With that in mind, I think it may be helpful to understand the nature of the Identity Monad, as it's the most trivial implementation of a Monad possible (I think).
What is interesting about the Identity Monad? I think it is that it allows me to express the idea of evaluating expressions in a context defined by other expressions. And to me, that is the essence of every Monad I've encountered (so far).
If you already had a lot of exposure to 'mainstream' programming languages before learning Haskell (like I did), then this doesn't seem very interesting at all. After all, in a mainstream programming language, statements are executed in sequence, one after the other (excepting control-flow constructs, of course). And naturally, we can assume that every statement is evaluated in the context of all previously executed statements and that those previously executed statements may alter the environment and the behavior of the currently executing statement.
All of that is pretty much a foreign concept in a functional, lazy language like Haskell. The order in which computations are evaluated in Haskell is well-defined, but sometimes hard to predict, and even harder to control. And for many kinds of problems, that's just fine. But other sorts of problems (e.g. IO) are hard to solve without some convenient way to establish an implicit order and context between the computations in your program.
As far as side-effects go, specifically, often they can be transformed (via a Monad) in to simple state-passing, which is perfectly legal in a pure functional language. Some Monads don't seem to be of that nature, however. Monads such as the IO Monad or the ST monad literally perform side-effecting actions. There are many ways to think about this, but one way that I think about it is that just because my computations must exist in a world without side-effects, the Monad may not. As such, the Monad is free to establish a context for my computation to execute that is based on side-effects defined by other computations.
Finally, I must disclaim that I am definitely not a Haskell expert. As such, please understand that everything I've said is pretty much my own thoughts on this subject and I may very well disown them later when I understand Monads more fully.
the point is so there can be clean error handling in a chain of functions, containers, and side effects
More or less.
how exactly is the problem of side-effects solved?
A value in the I/O monad, i.e. one of type IO a, should be interpreted as a program. p >> q on IO values can then be interpreted as the operator that combines two programs into one that first executes p, then q. The other monad operators have similar interpretations. By assigning a program to the name main, you declare to the compiler that that is the program that has to be executed by its output object code.
As for the list monad, it's not really related to the I/O monad except in a very abstract mathematical sense. The IO monad gives deterministic computation with side effects, while the list monad gives non-deterministic (but not random!) backtracking search, somewhat similar to Prolog's modus operandi.
With this concept of containers, the language essentially says anything inside the containers is non-deterministic
No. Haskell is deterministic. If you ask for integer addition 2+2 you will always get 4.
"Nondeterministic" is only a metaphor, a way of thinking. Everything is deterministic under the hood. If you have this code:
do x <- [4,5]
y <- [0,1]
return (x+y)
it is roughly equivalent to Python code
l = []
for x in [4,5]:
for y in [0,1]:
l.append(x+y)
You see nondeterminism here? No, it's deterministic construction of a list. Run it twice, you'll get the same numbers in the same order.
You can describe it this way: Choose arbitrary x from [4,5]. Choose arbitrary y from [0,1]. Return x+y. Collect all possible results.
That way seems to involve nondeterminism, but it's only a nested loop (list comprehension). There is no "real" nondeterminism here, it's simulated by checking all possibilities. Nondeterminism is an illusion. The code only appears to be nondeterministic.
This code using State monad:
do put 0
x <- get
put (x+2)
y <- get
return (y+3)
gives 5 and seems to involve changing state. As with lists it's an illusion. There are no "variables" that change (as in imperative languages). Everything is nonmutable under the hood.
You can describe the code this way: put 0 to a variable. Read the value of a variable to x. Put (x+2) to the variable. Read the variable to y, and return y+3.
That way seems to involve state, but it's only composing functions passing additional parameter. There is no "real" mutability here, it's simulated by composition. Mutability is an illusion. The code only appears to be using it.
Haskell does it this way: you've got functions
a -> s -> (b,s)
This function takes and old value of state and returns new value. It does not involve mutability or change variables. It's a function in mathematical sense.
For example the function "put" takes new value of state, ignores current state and returns new state:
put x _ = ((), x)
Just like you can compose two normal functions
a -> b
b -> c
into
a -> c
using (.) operator you can compose "state" transformers
a -> s -> (b,s)
b -> s -> (c,s)
into a single function
a -> s -> (c,s)
Try writing the composition operator yourself. This is what really happens, there are no "side effects" only passing arguments to functions.
From what I understand, Monad is just another typeclass that declares ways to interact with data [...]
...providing an interface common to all those types which have an instance. This can then be used to provide generic definitions which work across all monadic types.
It seems clever and clean to implement these 3 things with one concept [...]
...the only three things that are implemented are the instances for those three types (list, Maybe and IO) - the types themselves are defined independently elsewhere.
[...] but really, the point is so there can be clean error handling in a chain of functions, containers, and side effects.
Not just error handling e.g. consider ST - without the monadic interface, you would have to pass the encapsulated-state directly and correctly...a tiresome task.
How exactly is the problem of side-effects solved?
Short answer: Haskell solves manages them by using types to indicate their presence.
Can someone explain how, intuitively, Haskell gets away with changing state with inputs and output?
"Intuitively"...like what's available over here? Let's try a simple direct comparison instead:
From How to Declare an Imperative by Philip Wadler:
(* page 26 *)
type 'a io = unit -> 'a
infix >>=
val >>= : 'a io * ('a -> 'b io) -> 'b io
fun m >>= k = fn () => let
val x = m ()
val y = k x ()
in
y
end
val return : 'a -> 'a io
fun return x = fn () => x
val putc : char -> unit io
fun putc c = fn () => putcML c
val getc : char io
val getc = fn () => getcML ()
fun getcML () =
valOf(TextIO.input1(TextIO.stdIn))
(* page 25 *)
fun putcML c =
TextIO.output1(TextIO.stdOut,c)
Based on these two answers of mine, this is my Haskell translation:
type IO a = OI -> a
(>>=) :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
m >>= k = \ u -> let !(u1, u2) = part u in
let !x = m u1 in
let !y = k x u2 in
y
return :: a -> IO a
return x = \ u -> let !_ = part u in x
putc :: Char -> IO ()
putc c = \ u -> putcOI c u
getc :: IO Char
getc = \ u -> getcOI u
-- primitives
data OI
partOI :: OI -> (OI, OI)
putcOI :: Char -> OI -> ()
getcOI :: OI -> Char
Now remember that short answer about side-effects?
Haskell manages them by using types to indicate their presence.
Data.Char.chr :: Int -> Char -- no side effects
getChar :: IO Char -- side effects at
{- :: OI -> Char -} -- work: beware!