I am attempting to build a slackbot using this library: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/slack-api, just to learn a little bit more haskell, and hopefully, finally understand monads -_-.
I then have the following types:
data BotState = BotState
{
_appState :: AppState
}
makeLenses ''BotState
type AppState = HM.Map String ChannelState
emptyState :: AppState
emptyState = HM.empty
data ChannelState = ChannelState
{ _counter :: Int}
type Bot = Slack.Slack BotState
and I run my bot with:
initApp = lookupEnv "SLACK_API_TOKEN" >>=
\apiToken -> case apiToken of
Nothing -> throwM ApiTokenMissingException
Just t -> void $ Slack.runBot (Slack.SlackConfig t) runApp $ BotState emptyState
where:
runApp :: Slack.Event -> Bot ()
runApp m#(Slack.Message cid uid body _ _ _) = sendMessage cid "GAH I CAN HAZ CHZBURGHER!"
This runs fine, now I wish to add the ability to update the system state (by incrementing the counter, or in other ways).
so I add a modifyState function to my Bot:
modifyState :: (AppState -> AppState) -> Bot ()
modifyState f = uses Slack.userState $ view appState >>=
\state -> modifying Slack.userState $ set appState $ f state
This breaks with:
No instance for (Control.Monad.State.Class.MonadState
(Slack.SlackState BotState) ((->) BotState))
arising from a use of ‘modifying’
In the expression: modifying Slack.userState
In the expression:
modifying Slack.userState $ set appState $ f state
In the second argument of ‘(>>=)’, namely
‘\ state -> modifying Slack.userState $ set appState $ f state’
Which makes sense given the signature for modifying:
modifying :: MonadState s m => ASetter s s a b -> (a -> b) -> m ()
However, upon looking at the documentation for Slack.userState:
userState :: forall s s. Lens (SlackState s) (SlackState s) s s Source
And then:
data SlackState s
... Constructor ...
Instances
Show s => Show (SlackState s)Source
MonadState (SlackState s) (Slack s)Source
So then why isn't the BotState already an instance of MonadState? How could I fix this?
$ operator has fixity 0, while >>= has fixity 1, so code like this would work:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn "hello world" >>= \_ -> putStrLn "hi"
But not this one:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn $ "hello world" >>= \_ -> putStrLn "hi"
It's being interpreted as:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn ("hello world" >>= \_ -> putStrLn "hi")
To see fixity info, use ghci's :info command:
:info $
($) ::
forall (r :: ghc-prim-0.5.0.0:GHC.Types.RuntimeRep) a (b :: TYPE
r).
(a -> b) -> a -> b
-- Defined in ‘GHC.Base’
infixr 0 $
:info >>=
class Applicative m => Monad (m :: * -> *) where
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
...
-- Defined in ‘GHC.Base’
infixl 1 >>=
Also, if you're not sure, good old parentheses are always here for the rescue :)
Related
I'm playing around with the leveldb bindings.
I'm wondering if it's possible to take a function like
MonadResource m => a -> m b
And convert it to
MonadResource m => m (a -> IO b))
It can definitely be done, but it's dangerous. Let's demonstrate first the how, by extracting the internal state of the ResourceT:
import Control.Monad.IO.Class
import Control.Monad.Trans.Resource
import Control.Monad.Trans.Resource.Internal
data Foo = Foo Int
deriving Show
getFoo :: MonadResource m => Int -> m Foo
getFoo i = fmap snd $ allocate
(do
putStrLn $ "allocating Foo with " ++ show i
return $ Foo i)
(\(Foo x) -> putStrLn $ "Freeing Foo " ++ show x)
stripLayer :: MonadResource m => (a -> ResourceT IO b) -> m (a -> IO b)
stripLayer f = do
is <- liftResourceT getInternalState
return $ \a -> runInternalState (f a) is
main :: IO ()
main = do
getFoo' <- runResourceT $ stripLayer $ getFoo
getFoo' 42 >>= print
Unfortunately the output from this isn't what we'd hope for:
allocating Foo with 42
Foo 42
Notice how the "Freeing" line is never called. This is because, by the time we use getFoo', the runResourceT call has already exited, which is how we guarantee that all resources are freed. You can safely get away with this trick if you're disciplined and make sure everything lives inside the runResourceT call, but the type system won't help you. To see what this will look like:
main :: IO ()
main = runResourceT $ do
getFoo' <- stripLayer $ getFoo
liftIO $ getFoo' 42 >>= print
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.
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.
Context: This question is specifically in reference to Control.Lens (version 3.9.1 at the time of this writing)
I've been using the lens library and it is very nice to be able to read and write to a piece (or pieces for traversals) of a structure. I then had a though about whether a lens could be used against an external database. Of course, I would then need to execute in the IO Monad. So to generalize:
Question:
Given a getter, (s -> m a) and an setter (b -> s -> m t) where m is a Monad, is possible to construct Lens s t a b where the Functor of the lens is now contained to also be a Monad? Would it still be possible to compose these with (.) with other "purely functional" lenses?
Example:
Could I make Lens (MVar a) (MVar b) a b using readMVar and withMVar?
Alternative:
Is there an equivalent to Control.Lens for containers in the IO monad such as MVar or IORef (or STDIN)?
I've been thinking about this idea for some time, which I'd call mutable lenses. So far, I haven't made it into a package, let me know, if you'd benefit from it.
First let's recall the generalized van Laarhoven Lenses (after some imports we'll need later):
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import qualified Data.ByteString as BS
import Data.Functor.Constant
import Data.Functor.Identity
import Data.Traversable (Traversable)
import qualified Data.Traversable as T
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.STM
import Control.Concurrent.STM.TVar
type Lens s t a b = forall f . (Functor f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> f t)
type Lens' s a = Lens s s a a
we can create such a lens from a "getter" and a "setter" as
mkLens :: (s -> a) -> (s -> b -> t) -> Lens s t a b
mkLens g s f x = fmap (s x) (f (g x))
and get a "getter"/"setter" from a lens back as
get :: Lens s t a b -> (s -> a)
get l = getConstant . l Constant
set :: Lens s t a b -> (s -> b -> t)
set l x v = runIdentity $ l (const $ Identity v) x
as an example, the following lens accesses the first element of a pair:
_1 :: Lens' (a, b) a
_1 = mkLens fst (\(x, y) x' -> (x', y))
-- or directly: _1 f (a,c) = (\b -> (b,c)) `fmap` f a
Now how a mutable lens should work? Getting some container's content involves a monadic action. And setting a value doesn't change the container, it remains the same, just as a mutable piece of memory does. So the result of a mutable lens will have to be monadic, and instead of the return type container t we'll have just (). Moreover, the Functor constraint isn't enough, since we need to interleave it with monadic computations. Therefore, we'll need Traversable:
type MutableLensM m s a b
= forall f . (Traversable f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> m (f ()))
type MutableLensM' m s a
= MutableLensM m s a a
(Traversable is to monadic computations what Functor is to pure computations).
Again, we create helper functions
mkLensM :: (Monad m) => (s -> m a) -> (s -> b -> m ())
-> MutableLensM m s a b
mkLensM g s f x = g x >>= T.mapM (s x) . f
mget :: (Monad m) => MutableLensM m s a b -> s -> m a
mget l s = liftM getConstant $ l Constant s
mset :: (Monad m) => MutableLensM m s a b -> s -> b -> m ()
mset l s v = liftM runIdentity $ l (const $ Identity v) s
As an example, let's create a mutable lens from a TVar within STM:
alterTVar :: MutableLensM' STM (TVar a) a
alterTVar = mkLensM readTVar writeTVar
These lenses are one-sidedly directly composable with Lens, for example
alterTVar . _1 :: MutableLensM' STM (TVar (a, b)) a
Notes:
Mutable lenses could be made more powerful if we allow that the modifying function to include effects:
type MutableLensM2 m s a b
= (Traversable f) => (a -> m (f b)) -> (s -> m (f ()))
type MutableLensM2' m s a
= MutableLensM2 m s a a
mkLensM2 :: (Monad m) => (s -> m a) -> (s -> b -> m ())
-> MutableLensM2 m s a b
mkLensM2 g s f x = g x >>= f >>= T.mapM (s x)
However, it has two major drawbacks:
It isn't composable with pure Lens.
Since the inner action is arbitrary, it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot by mutating this (or other) lens during the mutating operation itself.
There are other possibilities for monadic lenses. For example, we can create a monadic copy-on-write lens that preserves the original container (just as Lens does), but where the operation involves some monadic action:
type LensCOW m s t a b
= forall f . (Traversable f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> m (f t))
I've made jLens - a Java library for mutable lenses, but the API is of course far from being as nice as Haskell lenses.
No, you can not constrain the "Functor of the lens" to also be a Monad. The type for a Lens requires that it be compatible with all Functors:
type Lens s t a b = forall f. Functor f => (a -> f b) -> s -> f t
This reads in English something like: A Lens is a function, which, for all types f where f is a Functor, takes an (a -> f b) and returns an s -> f t. The key part of that is that it must provide such a function for every Functor f, not just some subset of them that happen to be Monads.
Edit:
You could make a Lens (MVar a) (MVar b) a b, since none of s t a, or b are constrained. What would the types on the getter and setter needed to construct it be then? The type of the getter would be (MVar a -> a), which I believe could only be implemented as \_ -> undefined, since there's nothing that extracts the value from an MVar except as IO a. The setter would be (MVar a -> b -> MVar b), which we also can't define since there's nothing that makes an MVar except as IO (MVar b).
This suggests that instead we could instead make the type Lens (MVar a) (IO (MVar b)) (IO a) b. This would be an interesting avenue to pursue further with some actual code and a compiler, which I don't have right now. To combine that with other "purely functional" lenses, we'd probably want some sort of lift to lift the lens into a monad, something like liftLM :: (Monad m) => Lens s t a b -> Lens s (m t) (m a) b.
Code that compiles (2nd edit):
In order to be able to use the Lens s t a b as a Getter s a we must have s ~ t and a ~ b. This limits our type of useful lenses lifted over some Monad to the widest type for s and t and the widest type for a and b. If we substitute b ~ a into out possible type we would have Lens (MVar a) (IO (MVar a)) (IO a) a, but we still need MVar a ~ IO (MVar a) and IO a ~ a. We take the wides of each of these types, and choose Lens (IO (MVar a)) (IO (MVar a)) (IO a) (IO a), which Control.Lens.Lens lets us write as Lens' (IO (MVar a)) (IO a). Following this line of reasoning, we can make a complete system for combining "purely functional" lenses with lenses on monadic values. The operation to lift a "purely function" lens, liftLensM, then has the type (Monad m) => Lens' s a -> LensF' m s a, where LensF' f s a ~ Lens' (f s) (f a).
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
module Main (
main
) where
import Control.Lens
import Control.Concurrent.MVar
main = do
-- Using MVar
putStrLn "Ordinary MVar"
var <- newMVar 1
output var
swapMVar var 2
output var
-- Using mvarLens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO"
value <- (return var) ^. mvarLens
putStrLn $ show value
set mvarLens (return 3) (return var)
output var
-- Debugging lens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs"
value <- readM (debug mvarLens) var
putStrLn $ show value
setM (debug mvarLens) 4 var
output var
-- Debugging crazy box lens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs through a Box that's been lifted to LensF' IO that also debugs"
value <- readM ((debug mvarLens) . (debug (liftLensM boxLens))) var
putStrLn $ show value
setM ((debug mvarLens) . (debug (liftLensM boxLens))) (Box 5) var
output var
where
output = \v -> (readMVar v) >>= (putStrLn . show)
-- Types to write higher lenses easily
type LensF f s t a b = Lens (f s) (f t) (f a) (f b)
type LensF' f s a = Lens' (f s) (f a)
type GetterF f s a = Getter (f s) (f a)
type SetterF f s t a b = Setter (f s) (f t) (f a) (f b)
-- Lenses for MVars
setMVar :: IO (MVar a) -> IO a -> IO (MVar a)
setMVar ioVar ioValue = do
var <- ioVar
value <- ioValue
swapMVar var value
return var
getMVar :: IO (MVar a) -> IO a
getMVar ioVar = do
var <- ioVar
readMVar var
-- (flip (>>=)) readMVar
mvarLens :: LensF' IO (MVar a) a
mvarLens = lens getMVar setMVar
-- Lift a Lens' to a Lens' on monadic values
liftLensM :: (Monad m) => Lens' s a -> LensF' m s a
liftLensM pureLens = lens getM setM
where
getM mS = do
s <- mS
return (s^.pureLens)
setM mS mValue = do
s <- mS
value <- mValue
return (set pureLens value s)
-- Output when a Lens' is used in IO
debug :: (Show a) => LensF' IO s a -> LensF' IO s a
debug l = lens debugGet debugSet
where
debugGet ioS = do
value <- ioS^.l
putStrLn $ show $ "Getting " ++ (show value)
return value
debugSet ioS ioValue = do
value <- ioValue
putStrLn $ show $ "Setting " ++ (show value)
set l (return value) ioS
-- Easier way to use lenses in a monad (if you don't like writing return for each argument)
readM :: (Monad m) => GetterF m s a -> s -> m a
readM l s = (return s) ^. l
setM :: (Monad m) => SetterF m s t a b -> b -> s -> m t
setM l b s = set l (return b) (return s)
-- Another example lens
newtype Boxed a = Box {
unBox :: a
} deriving Show
boxLens :: Lens' a (Boxed a)
boxLens = lens Box (\_ -> unBox)
This code produces the following output:
Ordinary MVar
1
2
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO
2
3
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs
"Getting 3"
3
"Setting 4"
4
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs through a Box that's been lifted to LensF' IO that also debugs
"Getting 4"
"Getting Box {unBox = 4}"
Box {unBox = 4}
"Setting Box {unBox = 5}"
"Getting 4"
"Setting 5"
5
There's probably a better way to write liftLensM without resorting to using lens, (^.), set and do notation. Something seems wrong about building lenses by extracting the getter and setter and calling lens on a new getter and setter.
I wasn't able to figure out how to reuse a lens as both a getter and a setter. readM (debug mvarLens) and setM (debug mvarLens) both work just fine, but any construct like 'let debugMVarLens = debug mvarLens' loses either the fact it works as a Getter, the fact it works as a Setter, or the knowledge that Int is an instance of show so it can me used for debug. I'd love to see a better way of writing this part.
I had the same problem. I tried the methods in Petr and Cirdec's answers but never got to the point I wanted to. Started working on the problem, and at the end, I published the references library on hackage with a generalization of lenses.
I followed the idea of the yall library to parameterize the references with monad types. As a result there is an mvar reference in Control.Reference.Predefined. It is an IO reference, so an access to the referenced value is done in an IO action.
There are also other applications of this library, it is not restricted to IO. An additional feature is to add references (so adding _1 and _2 tuple accessors will give a both traversal, that accesses both fields). It can also be used to release resources after accessing them, so it can be used to manipulate files safely.
The usage is like this:
test =
do result <- newEmptyMVar
terminator <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO $ (result ^? mvar) >>= print >> (mvar .= ()) terminator >> return ()
hello <- newMVar (Just "World")
forkIO $ ((mvar & just & _tail & _tail) %~= ('_':) $ hello) >> return ()
forkIO $ ((mvar & just & element 1) .= 'u' $ hello) >> return ()
forkIO $ ((mvar & just) %~= ("Hello" ++) $ hello) >> return ()
x <- runMaybeT $ hello ^? (mvar & just)
mvar .= x $ result
terminator ^? mvar
The operator & combines lenses, ^? is generalized to handle references of any monad, not just a referenced value that may not exist. The %~= operator is an update of a monadic reference with a pure function.
I'm baffled by this compiler error message I'm getting. The functions addAgent and withAgent have similar type signatures and similar implementations, so I don't understand why addAgent compiles but withAgent doesn't. Thank you in advance for any help!
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts #-}
import Control.Monad.IO.Class (liftIO)
import Control.Monad.State (StateT, execStateT, gets, modify)
class AgentDatabase d where
type Elem d
addAgent :: Elem d -> StateT d IO ()
withAgent ::
(Elem d -> StateT d IO (Elem d)) -> String -> StateT d IO ()
data SimpleUniverse d = SimpleUniverse {
agentDB :: d
-- plus other fields
}
-- I want the methods of class AgentDatabase to "penetrate" through
-- the outer wrapper of SimpleUniverse and operate on the agentDB field.
instance (AgentDatabase d) =>
AgentDatabase (SimpleUniverse d) where
type Elem (SimpleUniverse d) = Elem d
-- When addAgent is invoked on a SimpleUniverse, apply it to the
-- agentDB field inside.
addAgent a = do
db <- gets agentDB
db' <- liftIO $ execStateT (addAgent a) db
modify (\u -> u { agentDB=db' } )
-- When withAgent is invoked on a SimpleUniverse, apply it to the
-- agentDB field inside.
withAgent program name = do
db <- gets agentDB
db' <- liftIO $ execStateT (withAgent program name) db -- line 33
modify (\u -> u { agentDB=db' } )
The error message I get is...
amy3.hs:33:11:
Couldn't match type `d' with `SimpleUniverse d'
`d' is a rigid type variable bound by
the instance declaration at amy3.hs:19:25
When using functional dependencies to combine
Control.Monad.State.Class.MonadState s (StateT s m),
arising from the dependency `m -> s'
in the instance declaration in `Control.Monad.State.Class'
Control.Monad.State.Class.MonadState
(SimpleUniverse (SimpleUniverse d)) (StateT (SimpleUniverse d) IO),
arising from a use of `gets' at amy3.hs:33:11-14
In a stmt of a 'do' block: db <- gets agentDB
In the expression:
do { db <- gets agentDB;
db' <- liftIO $ execStateT (withAgent program name) db;
modify (\ u -> u {agentDB = db'}) }
Failed, modules loaded: none.
program has type
Elem (SimpleUniverse d) -> StateT (SimpleUniverse d) IO (Elem (SimpleUniverse d))
which indeed simplifies, but to
Elem d -> StateT (SimpleUniverse d) IO (Elem d)
and the inner withAgent takes a program of type
Elem d -> StateT d IO (Elem d)
To fix that, this function will help:
stateMap :: Monad m => (s -> t) -> (t -> s) -> StateT s m a -> StateT t m a
stateMap f g (StateT h) = StateT $ liftM (fmap f) . h . g