Unable to derive Applicative when combining two monad transformer stacks - haskell

Question

I've written two monads for a domain-specific language I'm developing. The first is Lang, which is supposed to include everything needed to parse the language line by line. I knew I would want reader, writer, and state, so I used the RWS monad:
type LangLog = [String]
type LangState = [(String, String)]
type LangConfig = [(String, String)]
newtype Lang a = Lang { unLang :: RWS LangConfig LangLog LangState a }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadReader LangConfig
, MonadWriter LangLog
, MonadState LangState
)
The second is Repl, which uses Haskeline to interact with a user:
newtype Repl a = Repl { unRepl :: MaybeT (InputT IO) a }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadIO
)
Both seem to work individually (they compile and I've played around with their behavior in GHCi), but I've been unable to embed Lang into Repl to parse lines from the user. The main question is, how can I do that?
More specifically, if I write Repl to include Lang the way I originally intended:
newtype Repl a = Repl { unRepl :: MaybeT (InputT IO) (Lang a) }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadIO
, MonadReader LangConfig
, MonadWriter LangLog
, MonadState LangState
)
It mostly typechecks, but I can't derive Applicative (required for Monad and all the rest).
Since I'm new to monad transformers and designing REPLs, I've been studying/cargo-culting from Glambda's Repl.hs and Monad.hs. I originally picked it because I will try to use GADTs for my expressions too. It includes a couple unfamiliar practices, which I've adopted but am totally open to changing:
newtype + GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving (is this dangerous?)
MaybeT to allow quitting the REPL with mzero
Here's my working code so far:
{- LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
module Main where
import Control.Monad.RWS.Lazy
import Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe
import System.Console.Haskeline
-- Lang monad for parsing language line by line
type LangLog = [String]
type LangState = [(String, String)]
type LangConfig = [(String, String)]
newtype Lang a = Lang { unLang :: RWS LangConfig LangLog LangState a }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadReader LangConfig
, MonadWriter LangLog
, MonadState LangState
)
-- Repl monad for responding to user input
newtype Repl a = Repl { unRepl :: MaybeT (InputT IO) (Lang a) }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadIO
)
And a couple attempts to extend it. First, including Lang in Repl as mentioned above:
newtype Repl a = Repl { unRepl :: MaybeT (InputT IO) (Lang a) }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
)
-- Can't make a derived instance of ‘Functor Repl’
-- (even with cunning newtype deriving):
-- You need DeriveFunctor to derive an instance for this class
-- In the newtype declaration for ‘Repl’
--
-- After :set -XDeriveFunctor, it still complains:
--
-- Can't make a derived instance of ‘Applicative Repl’
-- (even with cunning newtype deriving):
-- cannot eta-reduce the representation type enough
-- In the newtype declaration for ‘Repl’
Next, trying to just use both of them at once:
-- Repl around Lang:
-- can't access Lang operations (get, put, ask, tell)
type ReplLang a = Repl (Lang a)
test1 :: ReplLang ()
test1 = do
liftIO $ putStrLn "can do liftIO here"
-- but not ask
return $ return ()
-- Lang around Repl:
-- can't access Repl operations (liftIO, getInputLine)
type LangRepl a = Lang (Repl a)
test2 :: LangRepl ()
test2 = do
_ <- ask -- can do ask
-- but not liftIO
return $ return ()
Not shown: I also tried various permutations of lift on the ask and putStrLn calls. Finally, to be sure this isn't an RWS-specific issue I tried writing Lang without it:
newtype Lang2 a = Lang2
{ unLang2 :: ReaderT LangConfig (WriterT LangLog (State LangState)) a
}
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
)
That gives the same eta-reduce error.
So to recap, the main thing I want to know is how do I combine these two monads? Am I missing an obvious combination of lifts, or arranging the transformer stack wrong, or running into some deeper issue?
Here are a couple possibly-related questions I looked at:
Tidying up Monads - turning application of a monad transformer into newtype monad
Generalized Newtype DerivingGeneralized Newtype Deriving
Issue deriving MonadTrans for chained custom monad transformers
Update: my hand-wavy understanding of monad transformers was the main problem. Using RWST instead of RWS so LangT can be inserted between Repl and IO mostly solves it:
newtype LangT m a = LangT { unLangT :: RWST LangConfig LangLog LangState m a }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
, MonadReader LangConfig
, MonadWriter LangLog
, MonadState LangState
)
type Lang2 a = LangT Identity a
newtype Repl2 a = Repl2 { unRepl2 :: MaybeT (LangT (InputT IO)) a }
deriving
( Functor
, Applicative
, Monad
-- , MonadIO -- ghc: No instance for (MonadIO (LangT (InputT IO)))
, MonadReader LangConfig
, MonadWriter LangLog
, MonadState LangState
)
The only remaining issue is I need to figure out how to make Repl2 an instance io MonadIO.
Update 2: All good now! Just needed to add MonadTrans to the list of instances derived for LangT.

Answer 1

You're trying to compose the two monads, one on top of the another. But in general monads don't compose this way. Let's have a look at a simplified version of your case. Let's assume we have just Maybe instead of MaybeT ... and Reader instead of Lang. So the type of your monad would be
Maybe (LangConfig -> a)
Now if this were a monad, we would have a total join function, which would have type
join :: Maybe (LangConfig -> Maybe (LangConfig -> a)) -> Maybe (LangConfig -> a)
And here a problem comes: What if the argument is a value Just f where
f :: LangConfig -> Maybe (LangConfig -> a)
and for some input f returns Nothing? There is no reasonable way how we could construct a meaningful value of Maybe (LangConfig -> a) from Just f. We need to read the LangConfig so that f can decide if its output will be Nothing or Just something, but within Maybe (LangConfig -> a) we can either return Nothing or read LangConfig, not both! So we can't have such a join function.
If you carefully look at monad transformers, you see that sometimes there is just one way how to combine two monads, and it's not their naive composition. In particular, both ReaderT r Maybe a and MaybeT (Reader r) a are isomorphic to r -> Maybe a. As we saw earlier, the reverse isn't a monad.
So the solution to your problem is to construct monad transformers instead of monads. You can either have both as monad transformers:
newtype LangT m a = Lang { unLang :: RWST LangConfig LangLog LangState m a }
newtype ReplT m a = Repl { unRepl :: MaybeT (InputT m) a }
and use them as LangT (ReplT IO) a or ReplT (LangT IO) a (as described in one of the comments, IO always has to be at the bottom of the stack). Or you can have just one of them (the outer one) as a transformer and another as a monad. But as you're using IO, the inner monad will have to internally include IO.
Note that there is a difference between LangT (ReplT IO) a and ReplT (LangT IO) a. It's similar to the difference between StateT s Maybe a and MaybeT (State s) a: If the former fails with mzero, neither result nor output state is produed. But in the latter fails with mzero, there is no result, but the state will remain available.