Related
I'm new to Haskell so this might be a noob question.
When I do return 10 >>= return GHCi shows 10. When I check the type of return 10 with :t it just says return 10 :: (Monad m, Num a) => m a, and of I do typeOf return 10 I get an error.
But as far as I understand, Haskell must have used a particular instance of >>= to evaluate return 10 >>= return, so which instance did it use and how did it decide which one to use?
This follows the idea that GHCi is sort of like a giant do block of IO. Whenever you type in something that is an expression it first tries to see if the type of the result can be specialized to something of the form IO a. If it can, it executes the IO action and just prints the result. Only otherwise does it print the result of the expression itself.
To force GHCi to go to whatever specific monad you want, you can add a type annotation. Notice how IO gets treated differently (and the same way as the expression would have been treated without any annotation).
ghci> return 10 >>= return :: Maybe Int
Just 10
ghci> return 10 >>= return :: [Int]
[10]
ghci> return 10 >>= return :: IO Int
10
As an aside, there is an entirely different problem regarding what instance of Num is chosen, and that one has everything to do with defaulting rules and the monomorphism restriction.
This is a type declaration of a bind method:
(>>=) :: (Monad m) => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
I read this as follows: apply a function that returns a wrapped value, to a wrapped value.
This method was included to Prelude as part of Monad typeclass. That means there are a lot of cases where it's needed.
OK, but I don't understand why it's a typical solution of a typical case at all.
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
In other words, what are typical cases where there are many functions which take a normal value, but return a wrapped value? (instead of taking a wrapped value and return a wrapped value)
The 'unwrapping' of values is exactly what you want to keep hidden when dealing with monads, since it is this that causes a lot of boilerplate.
For example, if you have a sequence of operations which return Maybe values that you want to combine, you have to manually propagate Nothing if you receive one:
nested :: a -> Maybe b
nested x = case f x of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just r ->
case g r of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just r' ->
case h r' of
Nothing -> Nothing
r'' -> i r''
This is what bind does for you:
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing
Just a >>= f = f a
so you can just write:
nested x = f x >>= g >>= h >>= i
Some monads don't allow you to manually unpack the values at all - the most common example is IO. The only way to get the value from an IO is to map or >>= and both of these require you to propagate IO in the output.
Everyone focuses on IO monad and inability to "unwrap".
But a Monad is not always a container, so you can't unwrap.
Reader r a == r->a such that (Reader r) is a Monad
to my mind is the simplest best example of a Monad that is not a container.
You can easily write a function that can produce m b given a: a->(r->b). But you can't easily "unwrap" the value from m a, because a is not wrapped in it. Monad is a type-level concept.
Also, notice that if you have m a->m b, you don't have a Monad. What Monad gives you, is a way to build a function m a->m b from a->m b (compare: Functor gives you a way to build a function m a->m b from a->b; ApplicativeFunctor gives you a way to build a function m a->m b from m (a->b))
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
Because that function would have to unwrap its argument in order to do something with it.
But for many choices of m, you can only unwrap a value if you will eventually rewrap your own result. This idea of "unwrap, do something, then rewrap" is embodied in the (>>=) function which unwraps for you, let's you do something, and forces you to rewrap by the type a -> m b.
To understand why you cannot unwrap without eventually rewrapping, we can look at some examples:
If m a = Maybe a, unwrapping for Just x would be easy: just return x. But how can we unwrap Nothing? We cannot. But if we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can skip the "do something" step and return Nothing for the overall operation.
If m a = [a], unwrapping for [x] would be easy: just return x. But for unwrapping [], we need the same trick as for Maybe a. And what about unwrapping [x, y, z]? If we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can execute the "do something" three times, for x, y and z and concat the results into a single list.
If m a = IO a, no unwrapping is easy because we only know the result sometimes in the future, when we actually run the IO action. But if we know that we will eventually rewrap, we can store the "do something" inside the IO action and perform it later, when we execute the IO action.
I hope these examples make it clear that for many interesting choices of m, we can only implement unwrapping if we know that we are going to rewrap. The type of (>>=) allows precisely this assumption, so it is cleverly chosen to make things work.
While (>>=) can sometimes be useful when used directly, its main purpose is to implement the <- bind syntax in do notation. It has the type m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b mainly because, when used in a do notation block, the right hand side of the <- is of type m a, the left hand side "binds" an a to the given identifier and, when combined with remainder of the do block, is of type a -> m b, the resulting monadic action is of type m b, and this is the only type it possibly could have to make this work.
For example:
echo = do
input <- getLine
putStrLn input
The right hand side of the <- is of type IO String
The left hands side of the <- with the remainder of the do block are of type String -> IO (). Compare with the desugared version using >>=:
echo = getLine >>= (\input -> putStrLn input)
The left hand side of the >>= is of type IO String. The right hand side is of type String -> IO (). Now, by applying an eta reduction to the lambda we can instead get:
echo = getLine >>= putStrLn
which shows why >>= is sometimes used directly rather than as the "engine" that powers do notation along with >>.
I'd also like to provide what I think is an important correction to the concept of "unwrapping" a monadic value, which is that it doesn't happen. The Monad class does not provide a generic function of type Monad m => m a -> a. Some particular instances do but this is not a feature of monads in general. Monads, generally speaking, cannot be "unwrapped".
Remember that m >>= k = join (fmap k m) is a law that must be true for any monad. Any particular implementation of >>= must satisfy this law and so must be equivalent to this general implementation.
What this means is that what really happens is that the monadic "computation" a -> m b is "lifted" to become an m a -> m (m b) using fmap and then applied the m a, giving an m (m b); and then join :: m (m a) -> m a is used to squish the two ms together to yield a m b. So the a never gets "out" of the monad. The monad is never "unwrapped". This is an incorrect way to think about monads and I would strongly recommend that you not get in the habit.
I will focus on your point
If you already created a function which returns a wrapped value, why
that function doesn't already take a wrapped value?
and the IO monad. Suppose you had
getLine :: IO String
putStrLn :: IO String -> IO () -- "already takes a wrapped value"
how one could write a program which reads a line and print it twice? An attempt would be
let line = getLine
in putStrLn line >> putStrLn line
but equational reasoning dictates that this is equivalent to
putStrLn getLine >> putStrLn getLine
which reads two lines instead.
What we lack is a way to "unwrap" the getLine once, and use it twice. The same issue would apply to reading a line, printing "hello", and then printing a line:
let line = getLine in putStrLn "hello" >> putStrLn line
-- equivalent to
putStrLn "hello" >> putStrLn getLine
So, we also lack a way to specify "when to unwrap" the getLine. The bind >>= operator provides a way to do this.
A more advanced theoretical note
If you swap the arguments around the (>>=) bind operator becomes (=<<)
(=<<) :: (a -> m b) -> (m a -> m b)
which turns any function f taking an unwrapped value into a function g taking a wrapped
value. Such g is known as the Kleisli extension of f. The bind operator guarantees
such an extension always exists, and provides a convenient way to use it.
Because we like to be able to apply functions like a -> b to our m as. Lifting such a function to m a -> m b is trivial (liftM, liftA, >>= return ., fmap) but the opposite is not necessarily possible.
You want some typical examples? How about putStrLn :: String -> IO ()? It would make no sense for this function to have the type IO String -> IO () because the origin of the string doesn't matter.
Anyway: You might have the wrong idea because of your "wrapped value" metaphor; I use it myself quite often, but it has its limitations. There isn't necessarily a pure way to get an a out of an m a - for example, if you have a getLine :: IO String, there's not a great deal of interesting things you can do with it - you can put it in a list, chain it in a row and other neat things, but you can't get any useful information out of it because you can't look inside an IO action. What you can do is use >>= which gives you a way to use the result of the action.
Similar things apply to monads where the "wrapping" metaphor applies too; For example the point Maybe monad is to avoid manually wrapping and unwrapping values with and from Just all the time.
My two most common examples:
1) I have a series of functions that generate a list of lists, but I finally need a flat list:
f :: a -> [a]
fAppliedThrice :: [a] -> [a]
fAppliedThrice aList = concat (map f (concat (map f (concat (map f a)))))
fAppliedThrice' :: [a] -> [a]
fAppliedThrice' aList = aList >>= f >>= f >>= f
A practical example of using this was when my functions fetched attributes of a foreign key relationship. I could just chain them together to finally obtain a flat list of attributes. Eg: Product hasMany Review hasMany Tag type relationship, and I finally want a list of all the tag names for a product. (I added some template-haskell and got a very good generic attribute fetcher for my purposes).
2) Say you have a series of filter-like functions to apply to some data. And they return Maybe values.
case (val >>= filter >>= filter2 >>= filter3) of
Nothing -> putStrLn "Bad data"
Just x -> putStrLn "Good data"
I thought I had a good handle on Haskell Monads until I realized this very simple piece of code made no sense to me (this is from the haskell wiki about the State monad):
playGame :: String -> State GameState GameValue
playGame [] = do
(_, score) <- get
return score
What confuses me is, why is the code allowed to call "get", when the only argument supplied is a string? It seems almost like it is pulling the value out of thin air.
A better way for me to ask the question may be, how would one rewrite this function using >>= and lambda's instead of do notation? I'm unable to figure it out myself.
Desugaring this into do notation would look like
playGame [] =
get >>= \ (_, score) ->
return score
We could also just write this with fmap
playGame [] = fmap (\(_, score) -> score) get
playGame [] = fmap snd get
Now the trick is to realize that get is a value like any other with the type
State s s
What get will return won't be determined until we feed our computation to runState or similar where we provide an explicit starting value for our state.
If we simplify this further and get rid of the state monad we'd have
playGame :: String -> (GameState -> (GameState, GameValue))
playGame [] = \gamestate -> (gamestate, snd gamestate)
The state monad is just wrapping around all of this manual passing of GameState but you can think of get as accessing the value that our "function" was passed.
A monad is a "thing" which takes a context (we call it m) and which "produces" a value, while still respecting the monad laws. We can think of this in terms of being "inside" and "outside" of the monad. The monad laws tell us how to deal with a "round trip" -- going outside and then coming back inside. In particular, the laws tell us that m (m a) is essentially the same type as (m a).
The point is that a monad is a generalization of this round-tripping thing. join squashes (m (m a))'s into (m a)'s, and (>>=) pulls a value out of the monad and applies a function into the monad. Put another way, it applies a function (f :: a -> m b) to the a in (m a) -- which yields an (m (m b)), and then squashes that via join to get our (m b).
So what does this have to do with 'get' and objects?
Well, do notation sets us up so that the result of a computation is in our monad. And (<-) lets us pull a value out of a monad, so that we can bind it to a function, while still nominally being inside of the monad. So, for example:
doStuff = do
a <- get
b <- get
return $ (a + b)
Notice that a and b are pure. They are "outside" of the get, because we actually peeked inside it. But now that we have a value outside of the monad, we need to do something with it (+) and then stick it back in the monad.
This is just a little bit of suggestive notation, but it might be nice if we could do:
doStuff = do
a <- get
b <- get
(a + b) -> (\x -> return x)
to really emphasize the back and forth of it. When you finish a monad action, you must be on the right column in that table, because when the action is done, 'join' will get called to flatten the layers. (At least, conceptually)
Oh, right, objects. Well, obviously, an OO language basically lives and breathes in an IO monad of some kind. But we can actually break it down some more. When you run something along the lines of:
x = foo.bar.baz.bin()
you are basically running a monad transformer stack, which takes an IO context, which produces a foo context, which produces a bar context, which produces a baz context, which produces a bin context. And then the runtime system "calls" join on this thing as many times as needed. Notice how well this idea meshes with "call stacks". And indeed, this is why it is called a "monad transformer stack" on the haskell side. It is a stack of monadic contexts.
I read in learn you haskell that
Enum members are sequentially ordered types ... Types in this class:
(), Bool, Char ...
Also it appears in some signatures:
putChar :: Char -> IO ()
It is very difficult to find info about it in Google as the answers refer to problems of the "common parentheses" (use in function calls, precedence problems and the like).
Therefore, what does the expression () means? Is it a type? What are variables of type ()? What is used for and when is it needed?
It is both a type and a value. () is a special type "pronounced" unit, and it has one value: (), also pronounced unit. It is essentially the same as the type void in Java or C/C++. If you're familiar with Python, think of it as the NoneType which has the singleton None.
It is useful when you want to denote an action that doesn't return anything. It is most commonly used in the context of Monads, such as the IO monad. For example, if you had the following function:
getVal :: IO Int
getVal = do
putStrLn "Enter an integer value:"
n <- getLine
return $ read n
And for some reason you decided that you just wanted to annoy the user and throw away the number they just passed in:
getValAnnoy :: IO ()
getValAnnoy = do
_ <- getVal
return () -- Returns nothing
However, return is just a Monad function, so we could abstract this a bit further
throwAwayResult :: Monad m => m a -> m ()
throwAwayResult action = do
_ <- action
return ()
Then
getValAnnoy = throwAwayResult getVal
However, you don't have to write this function yourself, it already exists in Control.Monad as the function void that is even less constraining and works on Functors:
void :: Functor f => f a -> f ()
void fa = fmap (const ()) fa
Why does it work on Functor instead of Monad? Well, for each Monad instance, you can write the Functor instance as
instance Monad m => Functor m where
fmap f m = m >>= return . f
But you can't make a Monad out of every Functor. It's like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square, Monads form a subset of Functors.
As others have said, it's the unit type which has one value called unit. In Haskell syntax this is easily, if confusingly, expressed as () :: (). We can make our own quite easily as well.
data Unit = Unit
>>> :t Unit :: Unit
Unit :: Unit
>>> :t () :: ()
() :: ()
It's written as () because it behaves very much like an "empty tuple" would. There are theoretical reasons why this holds, but honestly it makes a lot of simple intuitive sense too.
It's often used as the argument to a type constructor like IO or ST when its the context of the value that's interesting, not the value itself. This is intuitively true because if I tell you have I have a value of type () then you don't need to know anything more---there's only one of them!
putStrLn :: String -> IO () -- the return type is unimportant,
-- we just want the *effect*
map (const ()) :: [a] -> [()] -- this destroys all information about a list
-- keeping only the *length*
>>> [ (), (), () ] :: [()] -- this might as well just be the number `3`
-- there is nothing else interesting about it
forward :: [()] -> Int -- we have a pair of isomorphisms even
forward = length
backward :: Int -> [()]
backward n = replicate n ()
It is both a type and a value.
It is unit type, the type that has only one value. In Haskell its name and only value looks like empty tuple : ().
As others have said, () in Haskell is both the name of the "unit" type, and the only value of said type.
One of the confusing things in moving from imperative programming to Haskell is that the way the languages deal with the concept of "nothing" is different. What's more confusing is the vocabulary, because imperative languages and Haskell use the term "void" to mean diametrically different things.
In an imperative language, a "function" (which may not be a true mathematical function) may have "void" as its return type, as in this pseudocode example:
void sayHello() {
printLn("Hello!");
}
In this case, void means that the "function," if it returns, will not produce a result value. (The other possibility is that they function may not return—it may loop forever, or fail with an error or exception.)
In Haskell, however, all functions (and IO actions) must must produce a result. So when we write an IO action that doesn't produce any interesting return value, we make it return ():
sayHello :: IO ()
sayHello = putStrLn "Hello!"
Later actions will just ignore the () result value.
Now, you probably don't need to worry too much about this, but there is one place where this gets confusing, which is that in Haskell there is a type called Void, but it means something completely different from the imperative programming void. Because of this, the word "void" becomes a minefield when comparing Haskell and imperative languages, because the meaning is completely different when you switch paradigms.
In Haskell, Void is a type that doesn't have any values. The largest consequence of this is that in Haskell a function with return type Void can never return, it can only fail with an error or loop forever. Why? Because the function would have produce a value of type Void in order to return, but there isn't such a value.
This is however not relevant until you're working with some more advanced techniques, so you don't need to worry about it other than to beware of the word "void."
But the bigger lesson is that the imperative and the Haskell concepts of "no return value" are different. Haskell distinguishes between:
Things that may return but whose result won't have any information (the () type);
Things that cannot return, no matter what (the Void type).
The imperative void corresponds to the former, and not the latter.
The question is not what IO does, but how is it defined, its signature. Specifically, is this data or class, is "a" its type parameter then? I didn't find it anywhere. Also, I don't understand the syntactic meaning of this:
f :: IO a
You asked whether IO a is a data type: it is. And you asked whether the a is its type parameter: it is. You said you couldn't find its definition. Let me show you how to find it:
localhost:~ gareth.rowlands$ ghci
GHCi, version 7.6.3: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Prelude> :i IO
newtype IO a
= GHC.Types.IO (GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld
-> (# GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld, a #))
-- Defined in `GHC.Types'
instance Monad IO -- Defined in `GHC.Base'
instance Functor IO -- Defined in `GHC.Base'
Prelude>
In ghci, :i or :info tells you about a type. It shows the type declaration and where it's defined. You can see that IO is a Monad and a Functor too.
This technique is more useful on normal Haskell types - as others have noted, IO is magic in Haskell. In a typical Haskell type, the type signature is very revealing but the important thing to know about IO is not its type declaration, rather that IO actions actually perform IO. They do this in a pretty conventional way, typically by calling the underlying C or OS routine. For example, Haskell's putChar action might call C's putchar function.
IO is a polymorphic type (which happens to be an instance of Monad, irrelevant here).
Consider the humble list. If we were to write our own list of Ints, we might do this:
data IntList = Nil | Cons { listHead :: Int, listRest :: IntList }
If you then abstract over what element type it is, you get this:
data List a = Nil | Cons { listHead :: a, listRest :: List a }
As you can see, the return value of listRest is List a. List is a polymorphic type of kind * -> *, which is to say that it takes one type argument to create a concrete type.
In a similar way, IO is a polymorphic type with kind * -> *, which again means it takes one type argument. If you were to define it yourself, it might look like this:
data IO a = IO (RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld))
(definition courtesy of this answer)
The amount of magic in IO is grossly overestimated: it has some support from compiler and runtime system, but much less than newbies usually expect.
Here is the source file where it is defined:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/ghc-prim-0.3.0.0/src/GHC-Types.html
newtype IO a
= IO (State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #))
It is just an optimized version of state monad. If we remove optimization annotations we will see:
data IO a = IO (Realworld -> (Realworld, a))
So basically IO a is a data structure storing a function that takes old real world and returns new real world with io operation performed and a.
Some compiler tricks are necessary mostly to remove Realworld dummy value efficiently.
IO type is an abstract newtype - constructors are not exported, so you cannot bypass library functions, work with it directly and perform nasty things: duplicate RealWorld, create RealWorld out of nothing or escape the monad (write a function of IO a -> a type).
Since IO can be applied to objects of any type a, as it is a polymorphic monad, a is not specified.
If you have some object with type a, then it can be 'wrappered' as an object of type IO a, which you can think of as being an action that gives an object of type a. For example, getChar is of type IO Char, and so when it is called, it has the side effect of (From the program's perspective) generating a character, which comes from stdin.
As another example, putChar has type Char -> IO (), meaning that it takes a char, and then performs some action that gives no output (in the context of the program, though it will print the char given to stdout).
Edit: More explanation of monads:
A monad can be thought of as a 'wrapper type' M, and has two associated functions:
return and >>=.
Given a type a, it is possible to create objects of type M a (IO a in the case of the IO monad), using the return function.
return, therefore, has type a -> M a. Moreover, return attempts not to change the element that it is passed -- if you call return x, you will get a wrappered version of x that contains all of the information of x (Theoretically, at least. This doesn't happen with, for example, the empty monad.)
For example, return "x" will yield an M Char. This is how getChar works -- it yields an IO Char using a return statement, which is then pulled out of its wrapper with <-.
>>=, read as 'bind', is more complicated. It has type M a -> (a -> M b) -> M b, and its role is to take a 'wrappered' object, and a function from the underlying type of that object to another 'wrappered' object, and apply that function to the underlying variable in the first input.
For example, (return 5) >>= (return . (+ 3)) will yield an M Int, which will be the same M Int that would be given by return 8. In this way, any function that can be applied outside of a monad can also be applied inside of it.
To do this, one could take an arbitrary function f :: a -> b, and give the new function g :: M a -> M b as follows:
g x = x >>= (return . f)
Now, for something to be a monad, these operations must also have certain relations -- their definitions as above aren't quite enough.
First: (return x) >>= f must be equivalent to f x. That is, it must be equivalent to perform an operation on x whether it is 'wrapped' in the monad or not.
Second: x >>= return must be equivalent to m. That is, if an object is unwrapped by bind, and then rewrapped by return, it must return to its same state, unchanged.
Third, and finally (x >>= f) >>= g must be equivalent to x >>= (\y -> (f y >>= g) ). That is, function binding is associative (sort of). More accurately, if two functions are bound successively, this must be equivalent to binding the combination thereof.
Now, while this is how monads work, it's not how it's most commonly used, because of the syntactic sugar of do and <-.
Essentially, do begins a long chain of binds, and each <- sort of creates a lambda function that gets bound.
For example,
a = do x <- something
y <- function x
return y
is equivalent to
a = something >>= (\x -> (function x) >>= (\y -> return y))
In both cases, something is bound to x, function x is bound to y, and then y is returned to a in the wrapper of the relevant monad.
Sorry for the wall of text, and I hope it explains something. If there's more you need cleared up about this, or something in this explanation is confusing, just ask.
This is a very good question, if you ask me. I remember being very confused about this too, maybe this will help...
'IO' is a type constructor, 'IO a' is a type, the 'a' (in 'IO a') is an type variable. The letter 'a' carries no significance, the letter 'b' or 't1' could have been used just as well.
If you look at the definition of the IO type constructor you will see that it is a newtype defined as: GHC.Types.IO (GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld -> (# GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld, a #))
'f :: IO a' is the type of a function called 'f' of apparently no arguments that returns a result of some unconstrained type in the IO monad. 'in the IO monad' means that f can do some IO (i.e. change the 'RealWorld', where 'change' means replace the provided RealWorld with a new one) while computing its result. The result of f is polymorphic (that's a type variable 'a' not a type constant like 'Int'). A polymorphic result means that in your program it's the caller that determines the type of the result, so used in one place f could return an Int, used in another place it could return a String. 'Unconstrained' means that there's no type class restricting what type can be returned and so any type can be returned.
Why is 'f' a function and not a constant since there are no parameters and Haskell is pure? Because the definition of IO means that 'f :: IO a' could have been written 'f :: GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld -> (# GHC.Prim.State# GHC.Prim.RealWorld, a #)' and so in fact has a parameter -- the 'state of the real world'.
In the data IO a a have mainly the same meaning as in Maybe a.
But we can't rid of a constructor, like:
fromIO :: IO a -> a
fromIO (IO a) = a
Fortunately we could use this data in Monads, like:
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
foo = do
(fromIO :: a) <- (dataIO :: IO a)
...