My question is quite similar to How to modify using a monadic function with lenses? The author asked if something like this exists
overM :: (Monad m) => Lens s t a b -> (a -> m b) -> s -> m t
The answer was mapMOf
mapMOf :: Profunctor p =>
Over p (WrappedMonad m) s t a b -> p a (m b) -> s -> m t
I'm trying to implement a function that modifies state in MonadState using a monadic function:
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => ASetter s s a b -> (a -> m b) -> m ()
Example without modifingM:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
module Main where
import Control.Lens (makeLenses, use, (.=))
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class (lift)
import Control.Monad.Trans.State.Lazy (StateT(StateT), execStateT)
data GameObject = GameObject
{ _num :: Int
} deriving (Show)
data Game = Game
{ _objects :: [GameObject]
} deriving (Show)
makeLenses ''Game
makeLenses ''GameObject
defaultGame = Game {_objects = map GameObject [0 .. 3]}
action :: StateT Game IO ()
action = do
old <- use objects
new <- lift $ modifyObjects old
objects .= new
modifyObjects :: [GameObject] -> IO [GameObject]
modifyObjects objs = return objs -- do modifications
main :: IO ()
main = do
execStateT action defaultGame
return ()
This example works. Now I'd like to extract the code from action to a generic solution modifingM:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
module Main where
import Control.Lens (makeLenses, use, (.=), ASetter)
import Control.Monad.State.Class (MonadState)
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class (lift)
import Control.Monad.Trans.State.Lazy (StateT(StateT), execStateT)
data GameObject = GameObject
{ _num :: Int
} deriving (Show)
data Game = Game
{ _objects :: [GameObject]
} deriving (Show)
makeLenses ''Game
makeLenses ''GameObject
defaultGame = Game {_objects = map GameObject [0 .. 3]}
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => ASetter s s a b -> (a -> m b) -> m ()
modifyingM l f = do
old <- use l
new <- lift $ f old
l .= new
action :: StateT Game IO ()
action = modifyingM objects modifyObjects
modifyObjects :: [GameObject] -> IO [GameObject]
modifyObjects objs = return objs -- do modifications
main :: IO ()
main = do
execStateT action defaultGame
return ()
This results in compile time errors:
Main.hs:26:14: error:
• Couldn't match type ‘Data.Functor.Identity.Identity s’
with ‘Data.Functor.Const.Const a s’
Expected type: Control.Lens.Getter.Getting a s a
Actual type: ASetter s s a b
• In the first argument of ‘use’, namely ‘l’
In a stmt of a 'do' block: old <- use l
In the expression:
do { old <- use l;
new <- lift $ f old;
l .= new }
• Relevant bindings include
f :: a -> m b (bound at app/Main.hs:25:14)
l :: ASetter s s a b (bound at app/Main.hs:25:12)
modifyingM :: ASetter s s a b -> (a -> m b) -> m ()
(bound at app/Main.hs:25:1)
Main.hs:31:10: error:
• Couldn't match type ‘IO’ with ‘StateT Game IO’
Expected type: StateT Game IO ()
Actual type: IO ()
• In the expression: modifyingM objects modifyObjects
In an equation for ‘action’:
action = modifyingM objects modifyObjects
What's the problem?
Edit 1: Assign new instead of old value.
Edit 2: Added example with solution of #Zeta that does not compile.
Edit 3: Remove example of second edit. It didn't compile due to wrong imports (see comment).
You're using use on a ASetter, but use takes a Getter:
use :: MonadState s m => Getting a s a -> m a
(.=) :: MonadState s m => ASetter s s a b -> b -> m ()
Unfortunately, ASetter and Getting are not the same:
type Getting r s a = (a -> Const r a ) -> s -> Const r s
type ASetter s t a b = (a -> Identity b) -> s -> Identity t
We need to switch between Const and Identity arbitrarily. We need a Lens:
type Lens s t a b = forall f. Functor f => (a -> f b) -> s -> f t
Note that there is no f on the left-hand side. Next, we note that your lift is not necessary. After all, f already works in our target monad m; you had to use lift previously because modifyObjects was in IO and action was in StateT Game IO, but here we just have a single m:
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => Lens s s a a -> (a -> m b) -> m ()
modifyingM l f = do
old <- use l
new <- f old
l .= old
That works! But it's likely wrong, since you probably want to set the new value in l .= old. If that's the case, we have to make sure that old and new have the same type:
-- only a here, no b
-- v v v v
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => Lens s s a a -> (a -> m a) -> m ()
modifyingM l f = do
old <- use l
new <- f old
l .= new
Keep in mind that you need to lift modifyObjects though:
action :: StateT Game IO ()
action = modifyingM objects (lift . modifyObjects)
We could stop here, but just for some fun, let us have a look again at Lens:
type Lens s t a b = forall f. Functor f => (a -> f b) -> s -> f t
For any a -> f b you give me, I'll give you a new s -> f t. So if we just plug something in your objects, we have
> :t \f -> objects f
\f -> objects f
:: Functor f => (GameObject -> f GameObject) -> Game -> f Game
Therefore, we just need some MonadState s m => (s -> m s) -> m () function, but that's easy to achieve:
import Control.Monad.State.Lazy (get, put) -- not the Trans variant!
modifyM :: MonadState s m => (s -> m s) -> m ()
modifyM f = get >>= f >>= put
Note that you need to use Control.Monad.State from mtl instead of Control.Monad.Trans.State. The latter only defines put :: Monad m => s -> StateT s m () and get :: Monad m => StateT s m s, but you want to use the MonadState variant from mtl.
If we put all things together, we see that modifyingM can be written as:
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => Lens s s a a -> (a -> m a) -> m ()
modifyingM l f = modifyM (l f)
Alternatively, we use the can use the lens functions, although that does not give us the insight that we can use l f:
modifyingM :: MonadState s m => Lens s s a a -> (a -> m a) -> m ()
modifyingM l f = use l >>= f >>= assign l
Related
I have this bit of code:
import Data.Random
import Control.Monad.State
foo :: s -> StateT s RVar ()
foo s = do
p <- lift $ (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double)
if p > 0.5 then put s else return ()
And I would like to refactor its signature to be of form:
foo :: (MonadState s m, RandomSource m s) => s -> m ()
I thought I could equip RVar with MonadState functions:
{- LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-}
instance MonadState s m => MonadState s (RVarT m) where
get = lift get
put = lift . put
state = lift . state
and write:
foo :: (MonadState s m, RandomSource m s) => s -> m ()
foo s = do
p <- (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double)
if p > 0.5 then put s else return ()
But I am getting this inexplicable error:
Couldn't match type ‘m’
with ‘t0 (RVarT Data.Functor.Identity.Identity)’
‘m’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for
foo :: (MonadState s m, RandomSource m s) => s -> m ()
at ApproxMedian.hs:99:8
Expected type: m Double
Actual type: t0 (RVarT Data.Functor.Identity.Identity) Double
Relevant bindings include
foo :: s -> m () (bound at ApproxMedian.hs:100:1)
In a stmt of a 'do' block: p <- lift $ (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double)
In the expression:
do { p <- lift $ (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double);
if p > 0.5 then put s else return () }
In an equation for ‘foo’:
foo s
= do { p <- lift $ (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double);
if p > 0.5 then put s else return () }
Failed, modules loaded: Core, Statistics.
Please explain the error and help make the more generic signature possible?
If I wanted to do:
foo :: (MonadRandom m, MonadState s m) => s -> m ()
How would I implement it? I cannot use uniform any more. Because it locks me to signature RVar a but I really want MonadRandom m => m a,
or at the very least Monad m => RVarT m a
uniform is not polymorphic in the monad it runs in (in other words, you can't run it in any choice of m if all you know is that RandomSource m s):
uniform :: Distribution Uniform a => a -> a -> RVar a
However, if you have a source of entropy, you can runRVar it in any m if RandomSource m s:
runRVar :: RandomSource m s => RVar a -> s -> m a
which means you can write foo with your desired type signature as
foo :: (MonadState s m, RandomSource m s) => s -> m ()
foo s = do
p <- runRVar (uniform 0 1 :: RVar Double) s
when (p > 0.5) $ put s
I have a function that apply a function to a file if it exists:
import System.Directory
import Data.Maybe
applyToFile :: (FilePath -> IO a) -> FilePath -> IO (Maybe a)
applyToFile f p = doesFileExist p >>= apply
where
apply True = f p >>= (pure . Just)
apply False = pure Nothing
Usage example:
applyToFile readFile "/tmp/foo"
applyToFile (\p -> writeFile p "bar") "/tmp/foo"
A level of abstraction can be added with:
import System.Directory
import Data.Maybe
applyToFileIf :: (FilePath -> IO Bool) -> (FilePath -> IO a) -> FilePath -> IO (Maybe a)
applyToFileIf f g p = f p >>= apply
where
apply True = g p >>= (pure . Just)
apply False = pure Nothing
applyToFile :: (FilePath -> IO a) -> FilePath -> IO (Maybe a)
applyToFile f p = applyToFileIf doesFileExist f p
That allow usages like:
applyToFileIf (\p -> doesFileExist p >>= (pure . not)) (\p -> writeFile p "baz") "/tmp/baz"
I have the feeling that I just scratched the surface and there is a more generic pattern hiding.
Are there better abstractions or more idiomatic ways to do this?
applyToFileIf can be given a more generic type and a more generic name
applyToIf :: Monad m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m b) -> a -> m (Maybe b)
applyToIf f g p = f p >>= apply
where
apply True = g p >>= (return . Just)
apply False = return Nothing
In the type of applyToIf we see the composition of two Monads
Maybe is a monad ---v
applyToIf :: Monad m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m b) -> a -> m (Maybe b)
^------------- m is a monad -------------^
When we see the composition of two monads, we can expect that it could be replaced with a monad transformer stack and some class describing what that monad transformer adds. The MaybeT transformer replaces m (Maybe a)
newtype MaybeT m a = MaybeT { runMaybeT :: m (Maybe a) }
And adds MonadPlus to what an m can do.
instance (Monad m) => MonadPlus (MaybeT m) where ...
We'll change the type of applyToIf to not have a composition of two monads and instead have a MonadPlus constraint on a single monad
import Control.Monad
applyToIf :: MonadPlus m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m b) -> a -> m b
applyToIf f g p = f p >>= apply
where
apply True = g p
apply False = mzero
This could be rewritten in terms of guard from Control.Monad and given a more generic name.
guardBy :: MonadPlus m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m b) -> a -> m b
guardBy f g p = f p >>= apply
where
apply b = guard b >> g p
The second g argument adds nothing to what guardBy can do. guardBy f g p can be replaced by guardBy f return p >>= g. We will drop the second argument.
guardBy :: MonadPlus m => (a -> m Bool) -> a -> m a
guardBy f p = f p >>= \b -> guard b >> return p
The MaybeT transformer adds possible failure to any computation. We can use it to recreate applyToIf or use it more generally to handle failure through complete programs.
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
import Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe
applyToIf :: Monad m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m b) -> a -> m (Maybe b)
applyToIf f g = runMaybeT . (>>= lift . g) . guardBy (lift . f)
If you instead rework the program to use monad style classes, it might include a snippet like
import Control.Monad.IO.Class
(MonadPlus m, MonadIO m) =>
...
guardBy (liftIO . doesFileExist) filename >>= liftIO . readFile
I'm learning about mtl and I wish learn the proper way to create new monads as modules (not as typical application usage).
As a simple example I have written a ZipperT monad (complete code here):
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances, FunctionalDependencies, MultiParamTypeClasses, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
module ZipperT (
MonadZipper (..)
, ZipperT
, runZipperT
) where
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad.State
class Monad m => MonadZipper a m | m -> a where
pushL :: a -> m ()
pushR :: a -> m ()
...
data ZipperState s = ZipperState { left :: [s], right :: [s] }
newtype ZipperT s m a = ZipperT_ { runZipperT_ :: StateT (ZipperState s) m a }
deriving ( Functor, Applicative
, Monad, MonadIO, MonadTrans
, MonadState (ZipperState s))
instance (Monad m) => MonadZipper s (ZipperT s m) where
pushL x = modify $ \(ZipperState left right) -> ZipperState (x:left) right
pushR x = modify $ \(ZipperState left right) -> ZipperState left (x:right)
...
runZipperT :: (Monad m) => ZipperT s m a -> ([s], [s]) -> m (a, ([s], [s]))
runZipperT computation (left, right) = do
(x, ZipperState left' right') <- runStateT (runZipperT_ computation) (ZipperState left right)
return (x, (left', right'))
it's works and I can compose with other monads
import Control.Monad.Identity
import Control.Monad.State
import ZipperT
length' :: [a] -> Int
length' xs = runIdentity (execStateT (runZipperT contar ([], xs)) 0)
where contar = headR >>= \x -> case x of
Nothing -> return ()
Just _ -> do
right2left
(lift . modify) (+1)
-- ^^^^^^^
contar
But I wish to avoid the explicit lift.
What is the correct way to create modules like this?
Can I avoid the explicit lift? (I wish to hide the internal StateT structure of my ZipperT)
Thank you!
I think that if you can write an instance of MonadState for your transformer you can use modify without the lift:
instance Monad m => MonadState (ZipperT s m a) where
...
I must confess I am not sure about what part of the state modify should affect, though.
I've looked at the complete code. It seems that you already define
MonadState (ZipperState s) (ZipperT s m)
This already provides a modify which however modifies the wrong underlying state. What you actually wanted was to expose the state wrapped in m, provided that is a MonadState itself. This could theoretically be done with
instance MonadState s m => MonadState s (ZipperT s m) where
...
But now we have two MonadState instances for the same monad, causing a conflict.
I think I somehow solved this.
Here's what I did:
First, I removed the original deriving MonadState instance. I instead wrote
getZ :: Monad m => ZipperT s m (ZipperState s)
getZ = ZipperT_ get
putZ :: Monad m => ZipperState s -> ZipperT s m ()
putZ = ZipperT_ . put
modifyZ :: Monad m => (ZipperState s -> ZipperState s) -> ZipperT s m ()
modifyZ = ZipperT_ . modify
and replaced previous occurrences of get,put,modify in the ZipperT library with the above custom functions.
Then I added the new instance:
-- This requires UndecidableInstances
instance MonadState s m => MonadState s (ZipperT a m) where
get = lift get
put = lift . put
And now, the client code works without lifts:
length' :: [a] -> Int
length' xs = runIdentity (execStateT (runZipperT contar ([], xs)) 0)
where contar :: ZipperT a (StateT Int Identity) ()
contar = headR >>= \x -> case x of
Nothing -> return ()
Just _ -> do
right2left
modify (+ (1::Int))
-- ^^^^^^^
contar
How can we prove that the continuation monad has no valid instance of MonadFix?
Well actually, it's not that there can't be a MonadFix instance, just that the library's type is a bit too constrained. If you define ContT over all possible rs, then not only does MonadFix become possible, but all instances up to Monad require nothing of the underlying functor :
newtype ContT m a = ContT { runContT :: forall r. (a -> m r) -> m r }
instance Functor (ContT m) where
fmap f (ContT k) = ContT (\kb -> k (kb . f))
instance Monad (ContT m) where
return a = ContT ($a)
join (ContT kk) = ContT (\ka -> kk (\(ContT k) -> k ka))
instance MonadFix m => MonadFix (ContT m) where
mfix f = ContT (\ka -> mfixing (\a -> runContT (f a) ka<&>(,a)))
where mfixing f = fst <$> mfix (\ ~(_,a) -> f a )
Consider the type signature of mfix for the continuation monad.
(a -> ContT r m a) -> ContT r m a
-- expand the newtype
(a -> (a -> m r) -> m r) -> (a -> m r) -> m r
Here's the proof that there's no pure inhabitant of this type.
---------------------------------------------
(a -> (a -> m r) -> m r) -> (a -> m r) -> m r
introduce f, k
f :: a -> (a -> m r) -> m r
k :: a -> m r
---------------------------
m r
apply k
f :: a -> (a -> m r) -> m r
k :: a -> m r
---------------------------
a
dead end, backtrack
f :: a -> (a -> m r) -> m r
k :: a -> m r
---------------------------
m r
apply f
f :: a -> (a -> m r) -> m r f :: a -> (a -> m r) -> m r
k :: a -> m r k :: a -> m r
--------------------------- ---------------------------
a a -> m r
dead end reflexivity k
As you can see the problem is that both f and k expect a value of type a as an input. However, there's no way to conjure a value of type a. Hence, there's no pure inhabitant of mfix for the continuation monad.
Note that you can't define mfix recursively either because mfix f k = mfix ? ? would lead to an infinite regress since there's no base case. And, we can't define mfix f k = f ? ? or mfix f k = k ? because even with recursion there's no way to conjure a value of type a.
But, could we have an impure implementation of mfix for the continuation monad? Consider the following.
import Control.Concurrent.MVar
import Control.Monad.Cont
import Control.Monad.Fix
import System.IO.Unsafe
instance MonadFix (ContT r m) where
mfix f = ContT $ \k -> unsafePerformIO $ do
m <- newEmptyMVar
x <- unsafeInterleaveIO (readMVar m)
return . runContT (f x) $ \x' -> unsafePerformIO $ do
putMVar m x'
return (k x')
The question that arises is how to apply f to x'. Normally, we'd do this using a recursive let expression, i.e. let x' = f x'. However, x' is not the return value of f. Instead, the continuation given to f is applied to x'. To solve this conundrum, we create an empty mutable variable m, lazily read its value x, and apply f to x. It's safe to do so because f must not be strict in its argument. When f eventually calls the continuation given to it, we store the result x' in m and apply the continuation k to x'. Thus, when we finally evaluate x we get the result x'.
The above implementation of mfix for the continuation monad looks a lot like the implementation of mfix for the IO monad.
import Control.Concurrent.MVar
import Control.Monad.Fix
instance MonadFix IO where
mfix f = do
m <- newEmptyMVar
x <- unsafeInterleaveIO (takeMVar m)
x' <- f x
putMVar m x'
return x'
Note, that in the implementation of mfix for the continuation monad we used readMVar whereas in the implementation of mfix for the IO monad we used takeMVar. This is because, the continuation given to f can be called multiple times. However, we only want to store the result given to the first callback. Using readMVar instead of takeMVar ensures that the mutable variable remains full. Hence, if the continuation is called more than once then the second callback will block indefinitely on the putMVar operation.
However, only storing the result of the first callback seems kind of arbitrary. So, here's an implementation of mfix for the continuation monad that allows the provided continuation to be called multiple times. I wrote it in JavaScript because I couldn't get it to play nicely with laziness in Haskell.
// mfix :: (Thunk a -> ContT r m a) -> ContT r m a
const mfix = f => k => {
const ys = [];
return (function iteration(n) {
let i = 0, x;
return f(() => {
if (i > n) return x;
throw new ReferenceError("x is not defined");
})(y => {
const j = i++;
if (j === n) {
ys[j] = k(x = y);
iteration(i);
}
return ys[j];
});
}(0));
};
const example = triple => k => [
{ a: () => 1, b: () => 2, c: () => triple().a() + triple().b() },
{ a: () => 2, b: () => triple().c() - triple().a(), c: () => 5 },
{ a: () => triple().c() - triple().b(), b: () => 5, c: () => 8 },
].flatMap(k);
const result = mfix(example)(({ a, b, c }) => [{ a: a(), b: b(), c: c() }]);
console.log(result);
Here's the equivalent Haskell code, sans the implementation of mfix.
import Control.Monad.Cont
import Control.Monad.Fix
data Triple = { a :: Int, b :: Int, c :: Int } deriving Show
example :: Triple -> ContT r [] Triple
example triple = ContT $ \k ->
[ Triple 1 2 (a triple + b triple)
, Triple 2 (c triple - a triple) 5
, Triple (c triple - b triple) 5 8
] >>= k
result :: [Triple]
result = runContT (mfix example) pure
main :: IO ()
main = print result
Notice that this looks a lot like the list monad.
import Control.Monad.Fix
data Triple = { a :: Int, b :: Int, c :: Int } deriving Show
example :: Triple -> [Triple]
example triple =
[ Triple 1 2 (a triple + b triple)
, Triple 2 (c triple - a triple) 5
, Triple (c triple - b triple) 5 8
]
result :: [Triple]
result = mfix example
main :: IO ()
main = print result
This makes sense because after all the continuation monad is the mother of all monads. I'll leave the verification of the MonadFix laws of my JavaScript implementation of mfix as an exercise for the reader.
What follows is a series of examples/exercises upon Lenses (by Edward Kmett) in MonadState, based on the solution of Petr Pudlak to my previous question.
In addition to demonstrate some uses and the power of the lenses, these examples show how difficult it is to understand the type signature generated by GHCi. There is hope that in the future things will improve?
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell, RankNTypes #-}
import Control.Lens
import Control.Monad.State
---------- Example by Petr Pudlak ----------
-- | An example of a universal function that modifies any lens.
-- It reads a string and appends it to the existing value.
modif :: Lens' a String -> StateT a IO ()
modif l = do
s <- lift getLine
l %= (++ s)
-----------------------------------------------
The following comment type signatures are those produced by GHCi.
The other are adaptations from those of Peter.
Personally, I am struggling to understand than those produced by GHCi, and I wonder: why GHCi does not produce those simplified?
-------------------------------------------
-- modif2
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadTrans t, MonadState s (t IO)) =>
-- (Int -> p a b) -> Setting p s s a b -> t IO ()
modif2 :: (Int -> Int -> Int) -> Lens' a Int -> StateT a IO ()
modif2 f l = do
s<- lift getLine
l %= f (read s :: Int)
---------------------------------------
-- modif3
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadTrans t, MonadState s (t IO)) =>
-- (String -> p a b) -> Setting p s s a b -> t IO ()
modif3 :: (String -> Int -> Int) -> Lens' a Int -> StateT a IO ()
modif3 f l = do
s <- lift getLine
l %= f s
-- :t modif3 (\n -> (+) (read n :: Int)) == Lens' a Int -> StateT a IO ()
---------------------------------------
-- modif4
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadTrans t, MonadState s (t IO)) =>
-- (t1 -> p a b) -> (String -> t1) -> Setting p s s a b -> t IO ()
modif4 :: (Bool -> Bool -> Bool) -> (String -> Bool) -> Lens' a Bool -> StateT a IO ()
modif4 f f2 l = do
s <- lift getLine
l %= f (f2 s)
-- :t modif4 (&&) (\s -> read s :: Bool) == Lens' a Bool -> StateT a IO ()
---------------------------------------
-- modif5
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadTrans t, MonadState s (t IO)) =>
-- (t1 -> p a b) -> (String -> t1) -> Setting p s s a b -> t IO ()
modif5 :: (b -> b -> b) -> (String -> b) -> Lens' a b -> StateT a IO ()
modif5 f f2 l = do
s<- lift getLine
l %= f (f2 s)
-- :t modif5 (&&) (\s -> read s :: Bool) == Lens' a Bool -> StateT a IO ()
---------------------------------------
-- modif6
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadState s m) =>
-- (t -> p a b) -> (t1 -> t) -> t1 -> Setting p s s a b -> m ()
modif6 :: (b -> b -> b) -> (c -> b) -> c -> Lens' a b -> StateT a IO ()
modif6 f f2 x l = do
l %= f (f2 x)
-- :t modif6 (&&) (\s -> read s :: Bool) "True" == MonadState s m => Setting (->) s s Bool Bool -> m ()
-- :t modif6 (&&) (\s -> read s :: Bool) "True"
---------------------------------------
-- modif7
-- :: (Profunctor p, MonadState s IO) =>
-- (t -> p a b) -> (String -> t) -> Setting p s s a b -> IO ()
modif7 :: (b -> b -> b) -> (String -> b) -> Lens' a b -> StateT a IO ()
modif7 f f2 l = do
s <- lift getLine
l %= f (f2 s)
-- :t modif7 (&&) (\s -> read s :: Bool) ==
-- :t modif7 (+) (\s -> read s :: Int) ==
---------------------------------------
p7a :: StateT Int IO ()
p7a = do
get
modif7 (+) (\s -> read s :: Int) id
test7a = execStateT p7a 10 -- if input 30 then result 40
---------------------------------------
p7b :: StateT Bool IO ()
p7b = do
get
modif7 (||) (\s -> read s :: Bool) id
test7b = execStateT p7b False -- if input "True" then result "True"
---------------------------------------
data Test = Test { _first :: Int
, _second :: Bool
}
deriving Show
$(makeLenses ''Test)
dataTest :: Test
dataTest = Test { _first = 1, _second = False }
monadTest :: StateT Test IO String
monadTest = do
get
lift . putStrLn $ "1) modify \"first\" (Int requested)"
lift . putStrLn $ "2) modify \"second\" (Bool requested)"
answ <- lift getLine
case answ of
"1" -> do lift . putStr $ "> Write an Int: "
modif7 (+) (\s -> read s :: Int) first
"2" -> do lift . putStr $ "> Write a Bool: "
modif7 (||) (\s -> read s :: Bool) second
_ -> error "Wrong choice!"
return answ
testMonadTest :: IO Test
testMonadTest = execStateT monadTest dataTest
As a family in the ML tradition, Haskell is specifically designed so that every toplevel binding has a most general type, and the Haskell implementation can and has to infer this most general type. This ensures that you can reuse the binding in as much places as possible. In a way, this means that type inference is never wrong, because whatever type you have in mind, type inference will figure out the same type or a more general type.
why GHCi does not produce those simplified?
It figures out the more general types instead. For example, you mention that GHC figures out the following type for some code:
modif2 :: (Profunctor p, MonadTrans t, MonadState s (t IO)) =>
(Int -> p a b) -> Setting p s s a b -> t IO ()
This is a very general type, because every time I use modif2, I can choose different profunctors p, monad transformers t and states s. So modif2 is very reusable. You prefer this type signature:
modif2 :: (Int -> Int -> Int) -> Lens' a Int -> StateT a IO ()
I agree that this is more readable, but also less generic: Here you decided that p has to be -> and t has to be StateT, and as a user of modif2, I couldn't change that.
There is hope that in the future things will improve?
I'm sure that Haskell will continue to mandate most general types as the result of type inference. I could imagine that in addition to the most general type, ghci or a third-party tool could show you example instantiations. In this case, it would be nice to declare somehow that -> is a typical profunctor. I'm not aware of any work in this direction, though, so there is not much hope, no.
Let's look at your first example:
modif :: Lens' a String -> StateT a IO ()
modif l = do
s <- lift getLine
l %= (++ s)
This type is simple, but it has also has a shortcoming: You can only use your function passing a Lens. You cannot use your function when you have an Iso are a Traversal, even though this would make perfect sense! Given the more general type that GHCi inferes, you could for example write the following:
modif _Just :: StateT (Maybe String) IO ()
which would append the read value only if that state was a Just, or
modif traverse :: StateT [String] IO ()
which would append the read value to all elements in the list. This is not possible with the simple type you gave, because _Just and traverse are not lenses, but only Traversals.