In threads package in module Control.Concurrent.Thread.Group there is a function forkIO:
forkIO :: ThreadGroup -> IO α -> IO (ThreadId, IO (Result α))
I'd like to lift it using MonadBaseControl from monad-control. Here is my attempt:
fork :: (MonadBase IO m) => TG.ThreadGroup -> m α -> m (ThreadId, m (Result α))
fork tg action = control (\runInBase -> TG.forkIO tg (runInBase action))
and here is the error messsage:
Couldn't match type `(ThreadId, IO (Result (StM m α)))'
with `StM m (ThreadId, m (Result α))'
Expected type: IO (StM m (ThreadId, m (Result α)))
Actual type: IO (ThreadId, IO (Result (StM m α)))
In the return type of a call of `TG.forkIO'
In the expression: TG.forkIO tg (runInBase action)
In the first argument of `control', namely
`(\ runInBase -> TG.forkIO tg (runInBase action))'
What to change to make the types match?
The main problem is the IO a argument to forkIO. To fork an m a action in IO we'd need a way to run an m a to an IO a. To do this, we could try to make the class of monads that have a runBase :: MonadBase b m => m a -> b a method, but very few interesting transformers can provide that. If we consider for example the StateT transformer, it could figure out how to run something in the base monad with runStateT if it's first given an opportunity to observe its own state.
runFork :: Monad m => StateT s m a -> StateT s m (m b)
runFork x = do
s <- get
return $ do
(a, s') <- runStateT x s
return a
This suggests the type runForkBase :: MonadBase b m => m a -> m (b a), which we will settle on for the following type class.
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-}
import Control.Monad.Base
class (MonadBase b m) => MonadRunForkBase b m | m -> b where
runForkBase :: m a -> m (b a)
I added the word Fork to the name to emphasize that the future state changes will not in general be shared between the two futures. For this reason, the few interesting transformers like WriterT that could have provided a runBase only provide an uninteresting runBase; they produce side effects that will never be observable.
We can write something like fork for anything with the limited form of lowering provided by a MonadRunForkBase IO m instance. I'm going to lift the normal forkIO from base rather than the one from threads, which you can do the same way.
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
import Control.Concurrent
forkInIO :: (MonadRunForkBase IO m) => m () -> m ThreadId
forkInIO action = runForkBase action >>= liftBase . forkIO
Instances
This raises the question, "What transformers can we provide MonadRunForkBase instances for"? Straight off the bat, we can trivially provide them for any of the base monads that have MonadBase instances
import Control.Monad.Trans.Identity
import GHC.Conc.Sync (STM)
instance MonadRunForkBase [] [] where runForkBase = return
instance MonadRunForkBase IO IO where runForkBase = return
instance MonadRunForkBase STM STM where runForkBase = return
instance MonadRunForkBase Maybe Maybe where runForkBase = return
instance MonadRunForkBase Identity Identity where runForkBase = return
For transformers, it's usually easier to build up functionality like this step-by-step. Here's the class of transformers that can run a fork in the immediately underlying monad.
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
class (MonadTrans t) => MonadTransRunFork t where
runFork :: Monad m => t m a -> t m (m a)
We can provide a default implementation for running all the way down in the base
runForkBaseDefault :: (Monad (t m), MonadTransRunFork t, MonadRunForkBase b m) =>
t m a -> t m (b a)
runForkBaseDefault = (>>= lift . runForkBase) . runFork
This lets us complete out a MonadRunForkBase instance for StateT in two steps. First, we'll use our runFork from above to make a MonadTransRunFork instance
import Control.Monad
import qualified Control.Monad.Trans.State.Lazy as State
instance MonadTransRunFork (State.StateT s) where
runFork x = State.get >>= return . liftM fst . State.runStateT x
Then we'll use the default to provide a MonadRunForkBase instance.
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}
instance (MonadRunForkBase b m) => MonadRunForkBase b (State.StateT s m) where
runForkBase = runForkBaseDefault
We can do the same thing for RWS
import qualified Control.Monad.Trans.RWS.Lazy as RWS
instance (Monoid w) => MonadTransRunFork (RWS.RWST r w s) where
runFork x = do
r <- RWS.ask
s <- RWS.get
return $ do
(a, s', w') <- RWS.runRWST x r s
return a
instance (MonadRunForkBase b m, Monoid w) => MonadRunForkBase b (RWS.RWST r w s m) where
runForkBase = runForkBaseDefault
MonadBaseControl
Unlike MonadRunForkBase which we developed in the previous two sections, the MonadBaseControl from monad-control doesn't have baked in the assumption "future state changes will not in general be shared between the two futures". MonadBaseContol and control make an effort to restore the state from branching in control structures with restoreM :: StM m a -> m a. This doesn't present a problem for the forkIO from base; using forkIO is an example provided in the MonadBaseControl documentation. This will be a slight problem for the forkIO from threads because of the extra m (Result a) returned.
The m (Result a) we want will actually be returned as an IO (Result (StM m a)). We can get rid of the IO and replace it with an m with liftBase, leaving us with m (Result (StM m a)). We could convert an StM m a into an m a that restores state and then returns a with restoreM, but it is stuck inside a Result ~ Either SomeException. Either l is a functor, so we can apply restoreM everywhere inside it, simplifying the type to m (Result (m a)). Either l is also Traversable, and for any Traversable t we can always swap it inside a Monad or Applicative with sequenceA :: t (f a) -> f (t a). In this case, we can use the special purpose mapM which is a combination of fmap and sequenceA with only a Monad constraint. This would give m (m (Result a)), and the ms would be flattened together by a join in the Monad or simply using >>=. This gives rise to
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
import Control.Concurrent
import Control.Concurrent.Thread
import qualified Control.Concurrent.Thread.Group as TG
import Control.Monad.Base
import Control.Monad.Trans.Control
import Data.Functor
import Data.Traversable
import Prelude hiding (mapM)
fork :: (MonadBaseControl IO m) =>
TG.ThreadGroup -> m a -> m (ThreadId, m (Result a))
fork tg action = do
(tid, r) <- liftBaseWith (\runInBase -> TG.forkIO tg (runInBase action))
return (tid, liftBase r >>= mapM restoreM)
When we run the m (Result a) in the original thread, it will copy the state from the forked thread to the original thread, which may be useful. If you want to restore the state of the main thread after reading the Result you'll need to capture it first. checkpoint will capture the entire state and return an action to restore it.
checkpoint :: MonadBaseControl b m => m (m ())
checkpoint = liftBaseWith (\runInBase -> runInBase (return ()))
>>= return . restoreM
A complete example will show what happens to the state from two threads. Both threads get the state from when the fork happened regardless of efforts to modify the state in the other thread. When we wait for the result in the main thread, the state in the main thread is set to the state from the forked thread. We can get the main thread's state back by running the action created by checkpoint.
import Control.Monad.State hiding (mapM)
example :: (MonadState String m, MonadBase IO m, MonadBaseControl IO m) => m ()
example = do
get >>= liftBase . putStrLn
tg <- liftBase TG.new
(_, getResult) <- fork tg (get >>= put . ("In Fork:" ++) >> return 7)
get >>= put . ("In Main:" ++)
revert <- checkpoint
result <- getResult
(liftBase . print) result
get >>= liftBase . putStrLn
revert
get >>= liftBase . putStrLn
main = do
runStateT example "Initial"
return ()
This outputs
Initial
Right 7
In Fork:Initial
In Main:Initial
Related
How do I create a monad which uses State, Cont, and Reader transformers? I would like to read an environment, and update/use state. However, I would also like to pause/interrupt the action. For example, if a condition is met, the state remains unchanged.
So far I have a monad using ReaderT and StateT, but I cannot work out how to include ContT:
{-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
module Test where
-- monads
import Data.Functor.Identity (Identity, runIdentity)
import Control.Monad.State
import Control.Monad.Reader
import Control.Monad.Cont
-- reader environment
type In = Integer
-- cont: if true then pause, else continue
type Pause = Bool
-- state environment:
newtype StateType = StateType { s :: Integer }
newtype M r = M {_unM :: ReaderT In (ContT Pause (StateT StateType Identity)) r}
deriving ( Functor, Applicative, Monad
, MonadReader In
, MonadCont Pause
, MonadState StateType
)
-- run monadic action
runM :: In -> Pause -> StateType -> M r -> StateType
runM inp pause initial act
= runIdentity -- unwrap identity
$ flip execStateT initial -- unwrap state
$ flip runContT pause -- unwrap cont
$ flip runReaderT inp -- unwrap reader
$ _unM act -- unwrap action
This gives the error:
* Expected kind `* -> *', but `Pause' has kind `*'
* In the first argument of `MonadCont', namely `Pause'
In the newtype declaration for `M'
|
24| , MonadCont Pause
|
Ok, but why does Pause need kind * -> *?... I'm drowning in types, in need of explanation. What form does Pause have to take, a function? How does ContT integrate? Ultimately, I plan to use Cont for a control structure.
Unlike MonadReader and MonadState, the MonadCont type class takes only one parameter. Since that parameter m must be a Monad, it must have kind * -> *.
In your deriving clause, you want MonadCont, not MonadCont Pause.
added in response to followup question:
ContT is defined as:
newtype ContT r m a = ContT { runContT :: (a -> m r) -> m r }
Note that the r in your definition of newtype M r is passed as the final (a) parameter to ContT. Plugging in the variables, you have
ContT Bool (State StateType) a = ContT {
runContT :: (a -> State StateType Bool) -> (State StateType Bool)
}
This provides a computational context in which you can manipulate the StateType, and use delimited continuations. Eventually, you will construct a ContT Bool (State StateType) Bool. Then you can run the continuation (with evalContT), and return to the simpler State StateType context. (In practice, you may unwrap all 3 of your monad transformers in the same part of your program.)
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
I'm trying to build a UI with the VTY-UI library.
I'm also using a custom monad (a few monads stacked on top of eachother).
For regular IO functions, this is not a problem. I can just lift them into my monad. However, the VTY-UI function onActivate has this type signature:
onActivate :: Widget Edit -> (Widget Edit -> IO ()) -> IO ()
Is there a way to turn a Widget Edit -> MyMonad () function into a (Widget Edit -> IO ()) without having to wrap and unwrap my monad?
I'd rather not rewrite all the library's type signatures to be MonadIO m => m () instead of IO ().
The function liftBaseOpDiscard from monad-control seems to do the trick:
import Control.Monad.Trans.Control
type MyMonad a = ReaderT Int (StateT Int IO) a
onActivate' :: Widget Edit -> (Widget Edit -> MyMonad ()) -> MyMonad ()
onActivate' = liftBaseOpDiscard . onActivate
This function has a MonadBaseControl constraint, but ReaderT and StateT on top IO already have instances for that typeclass.
As the documentation for liftBaseOpDiscard mentions, changes to the state inside the callback will be discarded.
MonadBaseControl lets you temporarily hide the upper layers of a monad stack into a value of the base monad of the stack (liftBaseWith) and afterwards pop them again, if needed (restoreM).
Edit: If we need to preserve effects that take place inside the callback (like changes in the state) one solution is to "mimic" state by using an IORef as the environment of a ReaderT. Values written into the IORef are not discarded. The monad-unlift package is built around this idea. An example:
import Control.Monad.Trans.Unlift
import Control.Monad.Trans.RWS.Ref
import Data.IORef
-- use IORefs for the environment and the state
type MyMonad a = RWSRefT IORef IORef Int () Int IO a
onActivate' :: Widget Edit -> (Widget Edit -> MyMonad ()) -> MyMonad ()
onActivate' we f = do
-- the run function will unlift into IO
UnliftBase run <- askUnliftBase
-- There's no need to manually "restore" the stack using
-- restoreM, because the changes go through the IORefs
liftBase $ onActivate we (run . f)
The monad can be run afterwards using runRWSIORefT.
For the state part: you can use this module. Thanks to whoever realized that making get and put polymorphic was a good idea.
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}
module IState where
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.State
import Control.Monad.Reader
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
import Control.Applicative
import Data.IORef
newtype IState s m a = IState (ReaderT (IORef s) m a)
runIState (IState a) s = do
sr <- liftIO $ newIORef s
runReaderT a sr
runIStateRef (IState a) r = runReaderT a r
instance (Monad m) => Monad (IState s m) where
return = IState . return
(IState a) >>= f = let
f' i = let (IState i') = f i in i'
in IState (a >>= f')
instance (Monad m,Functor m) => Applicative (IState s m) where
pure = return
(<*>) = ap
instance (Functor m) => Functor (IState s m) where
fmap f (IState a) = IState (fmap f a)
instance (MonadIO m) => MonadIO (IState s m) where
liftIO = lift . liftIO
instance (MonadState s' m) => MonadState s' (IState s m) where
get = lift get
put = lift . put
-- Because of this instance IState is almost a drop-in replacement for StateT
instance (MonadIO m) => MonadState s (IState s m) where
get = IState $ do
r <- ask
liftIO $ readIORef r
put v = IState $ do
r <- ask
liftIO $ writeIORef r v
instance MonadTrans (IState s) where
lift a = IState (lift a)
I managed to implement the suggestion mentioned in the comments of the question.
I give vty callbacks in IO that sends events down a Chan. Then i have another thread listening for those events and executing the appropriate actions in my own monad.
How to use MonadBaseControl from monad-control to lift simpleHTTP function defined in happstack-server?
Current type of simpleHTTP:
simpleHTTP :: ToMessage a
=> Conf -> ServerPartT IO a -> IO ()
Expected type of simpleHTTPLifted:
simpleHTTPLifted :: (MonadBaseControl IO m, ToMessage a)
=> Conf -> ServerPartT m a -> m ()
My current attempt (does not compile):
simpleHTTPLifted conf action =
liftBaseWith (\runInBase ->
let
fixTypes :: UnWebT m a -> UnWebT IO a
fixTypes c = runInBase c
in simpleHTTP conf (mapServerPartT fixTypes action)
)
Note that similar puzzle is in my related question: MonadBaseControl: how to lift ThreadGroup
I'd like to understand how to in general lift such functions and what are usual steps taken when presented with such a type puzzle?
EDIT: I guess I need a function of type (StM m a -> a). restoreM is pretty close, but does not make it. I've also found an ugly version of fixTypes:
fixTypes :: UnWebT m a -> UnWebT IO a
fixTypes c = do
x <- newIORef undefined
_ <- runInBase (c >>= liftBase . writeIORef x)
readIORef x
This relies on IO being the base monad which is not an optimal solution.
I don't think you can lift this in general for any MonadBaseControl IO m. There are some ms for which we can.
In General
UnWebT m is isomorphic to WebT m which has a MonadTransControl instance. You can convert to and from WebT with mkWebT :: UnWebT m a -> WebT m a and ununWebT :: WebT m a -> UnWebT m a.
MonadBaseControl is a fancy wrapper around a stack of MonadTransControl transformers that flattens the stack so that running and restoring state happens all the way down the stack and all the way back up it again. You can understand MonadBaseControl by understanding MonadTransControl, which I'll repeat briefly here:
class MonadTrans t => MonadTransControl t where
data StT t :: * -> *
liftWith :: Monad m => (Run t -> m a) -> t m a
restoreT :: Monad m => m (StT t a) -> t m a
type Run t = forall n b. Monad n => t n b -> n (StT t b)
The class says with liftWith, "I'll provide a temporary way to run t ms in m, which you can use to build actions in m, which I will in turn run." The StT type of the result says, "the results of the t m things I run in m for you aren't going to be generally available in t m; I need to save my state somewhere, and you have to give me a chance to restore my state if you want the results."
Another way of saying approximately the same thing is, "I can temporarily unwrap the base monad". The question of implementing fixTypes is reduced to "Given that we can temporarily unwrap a WebT from an m and can temporarily unwrap an m from IO, can we permanently unwrap an m from an IO?" for which the answer, barring the capabilities of IO, is almost certainly "no".
IO Tricks
I suspect that there exist ms such that the "ugly" fixTypes will do horrible things like never call writeIORef and thus return undefined or execute code asynchronously and therefore call writeIORef after readIORef. I'm not sure. This is made complicated to reason about due to the possibility that the action created by liftBaseWith is never used in such degenerate cases.
For Comonads
There should be a way to lift simpleHttp without IO tricks precisely when the state of the monad m is a Comonad and therefore has a function extract :: StM m a -> a. For example, this would be the case for StateT s m which essentially has StM s a ~ (s, a).
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Happstack.Server.SimpleHTTP
import Control.Comonad
import Control.Monad.Base
import Control.Monad.Trans.Control
simpleHTTPLifted :: forall m a. (MonadBaseControl IO m, Comonad (StM m), ToMessage a)
=> Conf -> ServerPartT m a -> m ()
simpleHTTPLifted conf action =
liftBaseWith (\runInBase ->
let
fixTypes :: UnWebT m b -> UnWebT IO b
fixTypes = fmap extract . runInBase
in simpleHTTP conf (mapServerPartT fixTypes action)
)
In practice this isn't very useful because the newtypes defined in the older versions of monad-control don't have Comonad instances and the type synonymns in the newer versions of monad-control make no effort to have the result as the last type argument. For example, in the newest version of monad-control type StT (StateT s) a = (a, s) .
I have a small bit of an architectural problem for which I'd like to see if there's a common pattern or abstraction that can help me. I'm writing a game engine where the user is able to specify a game loop as a monadic computation of the form:
gameLoop :: TimeStep -> a -> Game a
where the Game monad has a bunch of access points for drawing, transforming, and interfacing with the engine in general. Then, I also provide a function that the user calls to run the simulation
runGame :: (TimeStep -> a -> Game a) -> a -> IO a
One of the main design goals of the library was to not make Game an instance of the MonadIO typeclass. This is to prevent the user from shooting themselves in the foot by changing the state of the underlying graphics calls, or loading things when they're not expected. However, there are often use cases where the result of an IO a is useful after the game loop has already begun. In particular, spawning enemies with procedurally generated graphical elements comes to mind.
As a result, I'd like to allow the user to request resources using something similar to the following interface:
data ResourceRequestResult a
= NotLoaded
| Loaded a
newtype ResourceRequest a = ResourceRequest {
getRequestResult :: Game (ResourceRequestResult a)
}
requestResource :: IO a -> Game (ResourceRequest a)
With this, I'd like to fork a thread to load the resource and pass the result to the context of the Game monad and back to the user. The main goal would be that I get to decide when the IO action takes place -- somewhere that I expect it to rather than in the middle of the game loop.
One idea that I had in mind was to place another user-defined monad transformer on top of the Game monad... something like
newtype ResourceT r m a = ResourceT (StateT [ResourceRequest r] m a)
However, I believe that then specifying things in terms of f :: ResourceT r Game a becomes an API nightmare, as I'd have to support any possible combination of monad transformer stacks. Ideally I'd also like to avoid making Game polymorphic in r, as it would increase the verbosity and portability of the underlying Game functions as well.
Does Haskell have any abstractions or idioms for something like this programming pattern? Is what I want not possible?
The simplest thing is to use module-level encapsulation. Something like this:
module Game (Game, loadResource) where
data GameState -- = ...
newtype Game = Game { runGame :: StateT GameState IO a }
io :: IO a -> Game a
io = Game . liftIO
loadResource :: IO a -> Game (Game a)
loadResource action = io $ do
v <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO (action >>= putMVar v)
return . io $ takeMVar v
As seen here, you can use the fact that Game can do IO within the Game module without exposing this fact to the rest of the world, exposing only the bits of IO that you consider "safe". In particular, you would not make Game an instance of MonadIO (and it can't be made an instance of MonadTrans as it has the wrong kind). Moreover, the io function and Game constructor are not exported, so the user can't pull an end-run in that way.
Monads and especially monad transformers come from trying to build complicated programs out of simpler pieces. An additional transformer for the new responsibility is an idiomatic way of handling this problem in Haskell.
There's more than one way to deal with transformer stacks. Since you are already using mtl in your code, I'll assume you are comfortable with the choice of typeclasses for penetrating the transformer stack.
The examples given below are complete overkill for the toy problem. This whole example is huge - it shows how pieces can come together from monads defined in multiple different ways - in terms of IO, in terms of a transformer like RWST and in terms of free monad from a functor.
An interface
I like complete examples, so we'll start with a complete interface for a game engine. This will be a small collection of typeclasses each representing one responsibility of the game engine. The ultimate goal will be to provide a function with the following type
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
runGame :: (forall m. MonadGame m => m a) -> IO a
As long as MonadGame doesn't include MonadIO a user of runGame can't make use of IO in general. We can still export all of our underlying types and write instances like MonadIO and a user of the library can still be sure they didn't make a mistake as long as they enter the library through runGame. The typeclasses presented here are actually the same as a free monad, and you don't have to choose between them.
If you don't like either the rank 2 type or a free monad for some reason, you can instead make a new type with no MonadIO instance and not export the constructor as in Daniel Wagner's answer.
Our interface will consist of four type classes - MonadGameState for handling state, MonadGameResource for handling resources, MonadGameDraw for drawing, and an overarching MonadGame that includes all the other three for convenience.
The MonadGameState is a simpler version of MonadRWS from Control.Monad.RWS.Class. The only reason to define our own class is so that MonadRWS is still available for someone else to use. MonadGameState needs data types for the games configuration, how it outputs data to draw, and the state maintained.
import Data.Monoid
data GameConfig = GameConfig
newtype GameOutput = GameOutput (String -> String)
instance Monoid GameOutput where
mempty = GameOutput id
mappend (GameOutput a) (GameOutput b) = GameOutput (a . b)
data GameState = GameState {keys :: Maybe String}
class Monad m => MonadGameState m where
getConfig :: m GameConfig
output :: GameOutput -> m ()
getState :: m GameState
updateState :: (GameState -> (a, GameState)) -> m a
Resources are handled by returning an action that can be run later to get the resource if it was loaded.
class (Monad m) => MonadGameResource m where
requestResource :: IO a -> m (m (Maybe a))
I'm going to add another concern to the game engine and eliminate the need for a (TimeStep -> a -> Game a). Instead of drawing by returning a value, my interface will draw by asking for it explicitly. The return of draw will tell us the TimeStep.
data TimeStep = TimeStep
class Monad m => MonadGameDraw m where
draw :: m TimeStep
Finally, MonadGame will require instances for the other three type classes.
class (MonadGameState m, MonadGameDraw m, MonadGameResource m) => MonadGame m
Default definitions for transformers
It's easy to provide default definition of all four type classes for monad transformers. We'll add defaults to all three classes.
{-# LANGUAGE DefaultSignatures #-}
class Monad m => MonadGameState m where
getConfig :: m GameConfig
output :: GameOutput -> m ()
getState :: m GameState
updateState :: (GameState -> (a, GameState)) -> m a
default getConfig :: (MonadTrans t, MonadGameState m) => t m GameConfig
getConfig = lift getConfig
default output :: (MonadTrans t, MonadGameState m) => GameOutput -> t m ()
output = lift . output
default getState :: (MonadTrans t, MonadGameState m) => t m GameState
getState = lift getState
default updateState :: (MonadTrans t, MonadGameState m) => (GameState -> (a, GameState)) -> t m a
updateState = lift . updateState
class (Monad m) => MonadGameResource m where
requestResource :: IO a -> m (m (Maybe a))
default requestResource :: (Monad m, MonadTrans t, MonadGameResource m) => IO a -> t m (t m (Maybe a))
requestResource = lift . liftM lift . requestResource
class Monad m => MonadGameDraw m where
draw :: m TimeStep
default draw :: (MonadTrans t, MonadGameDraw m) => t m TimeStep
draw = lift draw
I know that I plan on using RWST for state, IdentityT for resources, and FreeT for drawing, so we'll provide instances for all of those transformers now.
import Control.Monad.RWS.Lazy
import Control.Monad.Trans.Free
import Control.Monad.Trans.Identity
instance (Monoid w, MonadGameState m) => MonadGameState (RWST r w s m)
instance (Monoid w, MonadGameDraw m) => MonadGameDraw (RWST r w s m)
instance (Monoid w, MonadGameResource m) => MonadGameResource (RWST r w s m)
instance (Monoid w, MonadGame m) => MonadGame (RWST r w s m)
instance (Functor f, MonadGameState m) => MonadGameState (FreeT f m)
instance (Functor f, MonadGameDraw m) => MonadGameDraw (FreeT f m)
instance (Functor f, MonadGameResource m) => MonadGameResource (FreeT f m)
instance (Functor f, MonadGame m) => MonadGame (FreeT f m)
instance (MonadGameState m) => MonadGameState (IdentityT m)
instance (MonadGameDraw m) => MonadGameDraw (IdentityT m)
instance (MonadGameResource m) => MonadGameResource (IdentityT m)
instance (MonadGame m) => MonadGame (IdentityT m)
Game state
We plan on building the game state from RWST, so we'll make GameT a newtype for RWST. This allows us to attach our own instances like MonadGameState. We'll derive as many classes as we can with GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving.
{-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
-- Monad typeclasses from base
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.Fix
-- Monad typeclasses from transformers
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
import Control.Monad.IO.Class
-- Monad typeclasses from mtl
import Control.Monad.Error.Class
import Control.Monad.Cont.Class
newtype GameT m a = GameT {getGameT :: RWST GameConfig GameOutput GameState m a}
deriving (Alternative, Monad, Functor, MonadFix, MonadPlus, Applicative,
MonadTrans, MonadIO,
MonadError e, MonadCont,
MonadGameDraw)
We'll also provide the underivable instance for MonadGameResource and a convenience function equivalent to runRWST
instance (MonadGameResource m) => MonadGameResource (GameT m)
runGameT :: GameT m a -> GameConfig -> GameState -> m (a, GameState, GameOutput)
runGameT = runRWST . getGameT
This lets us get to the meat of providing MonadGameState which just passes everything off onto RWST.
instance (Monad m) => MonadGameState (GameT m) where
getConfig = GameT ask
output = GameT . tell
getState = GameT get
updateState = GameT . state
If we just added MonadGameState to something that already provided support for resources and drawing we just made a MonadGame.
instance (MonadGameDraw m, MonadGameResource m) => MonadGame (GameT m)
Resource handling
We can handle resources with IO and MVars as in jcast's answer. We'll make a transformer just so we have a type to attach an instance for MonadGameResource to. This is total overkill. To add overkill to overkill, I'm going to newType IdentityT just to get its MonadTrans instance. We'll derive everything we can.
newtype GameResourceT m a = GameResourceT {getGameResourceT :: IdentityT m a}
deriving (Alternative, Monad, Functor, MonadFix, Applicative,
MonadTrans, MonadIO,
MonadError e, MonadReader r, MonadState s, MonadWriter w, MonadCont,
MonadGameState, MonadGameDraw)
runGameResourceT :: GameResourceT m a -> m a
runGameResourceT = runIdentityT . getGameResourceT
We'll add an instance for MonadGameResource. This is exactly the same as the other answers.
gameResourceIO :: (MonadIO m) => IO a -> GameResourceT m a
gameResourceIO = GameResourceT . IdentityT . liftIO
instance (MonadIO m) => MonadGameResource (GameResourceT m) where
requestResource a = gameResourceIO $ do
var <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO (a >>= putMVar var)
return (gameResourceIO . tryTakeMVar $ var)
If we just added resource handling to something that already supported drawing and state, we have a MonadGame
instance (MonadGameState m, MonadGameDraw m, MonadIO m) => MonadGame (GameResourceT m)
Drawing
Like Gabriel Gonzales pointed out, "You can purify any IO interface mechanically". We'll use this trick to implement MonadGameDraw. The only drawing operation is to Draw with a function from the TimeStep to what to do next.
newtype DrawF next = Draw (TimeStep -> next)
deriving (Functor)
Combined with the free monad transformer, this is the trick I'm using to eliminate the need for a (TimeStep -> a -> Game a). Our DrawT transformer that adds drawing responsibility to a monad with FreeT DrawF.
newtype DrawT m a = DrawT {getDrawT :: FreeT DrawF m a}
deriving (Alternative, Monad, Functor, MonadPlus, Applicative,
MonadTrans, MonadIO,
MonadError e, MonadReader r, MonadState s, MonadWriter w, MonadCont,
MonadFree DrawF,
MonadGameState)
Once again we'll define the default instance for MonadGameResource and another convenience function.
instance (MonadGameResource m) => MonadGameResource (DrawT m)
runDrawT :: DrawT m a -> m (FreeF DrawF a (FreeT DrawF m a))
runDrawT = runFreeT . getDrawT
The MonadGameDraw instance says we need to Free (Draw next) where the next thing to do is return the TimeStamp.
instance (Monad m) => MonadGameDraw (DrawT m) where
draw = DrawT . FreeT . return . Free . Draw $ return
If we just added drawing to something that already handles state and resources, we have a MonadGame
instance (MonadGameState m, MonadGameResource m) => MonadGame (DrawT m)
The game engine
Drawing and the game state interact with each other - when we draw we need to get the output from the RWST to know what to draw. This is easy to do if GameT is directly under DrawT. Our toy loop is very simple; it draws the output and reads lines from the input.
runDrawIO :: (MonadIO m) => GameConfig -> GameState -> DrawT (GameT m) a -> m a
runDrawIO cfg s x = do
(f, s, GameOutput w) <- runGameT (runDrawT x) cfg s
case f of
Pure a -> return a
Free (Draw f) -> do
liftIO . putStr . w $ []
keys <- liftIO getLine
runDrawIO cfg (GameState (Just keys)) (DrawT . f $ TimeStep)
From this we can define running a game in IO by adding GameResourceT.
runGameIO :: DrawT (GameT (GameResourceT IO)) a -> IO a
runGameIO = runGameResourceT . runDrawIO GameConfig (GameState Nothing)
Finally, we can write runGame with the signature we've wanted from the beginning.
runGame :: (forall m. MonadGame m => m a) -> IO a
runGame x = runGameIO x
Example
This example requests the reverse of the last input after 5 seconds and displays everything that has data available each frame.
example :: MonadGame m => m ()
example = go []
where
go handles = do
handles <- dump handles
state <- getState
handles <- case keys state of
Nothing -> return handles
Just x -> do
handle <- requestResource ((threadDelay 5000000 >>) . return . reverse $ x)
return ((x,handle):handles)
draw
go handles
dump [] = return []
dump ((name, handle):xs) = do
resource <- handle
case resource of
Nothing -> liftM ((name,handle):) $ dump xs
Just contents -> do
output . GameOutput $ (name ++) . ("\n" ++) . (contents ++) . ("\n" ++)
dump xs
main = runGameIO example
You probably want to look up MVars: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.7.0.1/docs/Control-Concurrent-MVar.html.
tryReadMVar :: MVar a -> IO (Maybe a)
gives you your ResourceRequest, and
putMVar :: MVar a -> a -> IO ()
can be used to press the result at the end of the thread. Something like (ignoring newtypes etc.):
requestResourceImpl :: IO a -> IO (IO (Maybe a))
requestResourceImpl a = do
mv <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO $ do
x <- a
putMVar mv x
return $ tryReadMVar mv
This doesn't handle cases where a throws exceptions etc; if a does throw an exception, your resulting ResourceRequest will simply never report the resource as being available.
I strongly recommend making GameMonad an abstract type. You can make it a newtype (you can add deriving MonadReader etc. if necessary). Then you don't export its constructor; instead, define abstract operations like requestResource and export them instead.