Related
I'm learning Haskell and started noticing common suffixes in functions like:
debugM
mapM_
mapCE
Which is known as Hungarian Notation. But at the same time I can use type classes to write non-ambiguous code like:
show
return
Since functions like map are so common and used in many contexts, why not let type checker to pick correct polymorphic version of map, fmap, mapM, mapM_ or mapCE?
There's a little bit of "Hungarian notation", but it's quite different. In short, Haskell's type system removes the need for most of it.
The map/mapM thing is a neat example. These two functions confer the exact same concept, but cannot be polymorphically represented because abstracting over the difference would be really noisy. So we pick a Hungarian notation instead.
To be clear, the two types are
map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b])
mapM :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> ([a] -> m [b])
These look similar, all mapM does is add the monad, but not the same. The structure is revealed when you make the following synonyms
type Arr a b = a -> b
type Klei m a b = a -> m b
and rewrite the types as
map :: Arr a b -> Arr [a] [b]
mapM :: Monad m => Klei m a b -> Klei m [a] [b]
The thing to note is that Arr and Monad m => Klei m are often extremely similar things. They both form a certain structure known as a "category" which allows us to hoist all kinds of computation inside of it. [0]
What we'd like is to abstract over the choice of category with something like
class Mapping cat where
map :: cat a b -> cat [a] [b]
instance Mapping (->) where map = Prelude.map
instance Monad m => Mapping (Klei m) where map = mapM -- in spirit anyway
but it turns out that there is way more to be gained by abstracting over the list part with Functor [1]
class Functor f where
map :: (a -> b) -> (f a -> f b)
instance Functor [] where
map = Prelude.map
instance Functor Maybe where
map Nothing = Nothing
map (Just a) = Just (f a)
and so for simplicity's sake, we use Hungarian notation to make the difference of category instead of rolling it up into Haskell's polymorphism functionality.
[0] Notably, the fact that Klei m is a category implies m is a monad and the category laws become exactly the monad laws. In particular, that's my favorite way for remembering what the monad laws are.
[1] Technically, the sole method of Functor is called fmap not map, but it could and perhaps should have been called just map. The f was added so that the type signature for map remains simple (specialized to lists) and thus is a little less intimidating to beginners. Whether or not that was the right decision is a debate that continues today.
Your assumption is that all of these do roughly the same thing - they don't. map and fmap are pretty much the same function - map is just fmap specialized to the [] functor (either for historical reasons, or so that beginners would get less confusing type errors - I'm not sure).
mapM and mapM_ on the other hand are like map followed by sequence or sequence_ respectively - while what they're doing may look related, they're doing different things. Incidentally, the function that behaves like fmap for monads is... fmap (which is also aliased with a specialized signature to liftM, for historical reasons), as Monads are, by definition, also Functors; note that this is, right now, not enforced by the standard library - a historical oversight that should be corrected with GHC 7.10 if I'm not mistaken.
I don't know what to tell you about debugM and mapCE as I haven't seen these before.
Arrows seem to be gaining popularity in the Haskell community, but it seems to me like Monads are more powerful. What is gained by using Arrows? Why can't Monads be used instead?
Every monad gives rise to an arrow
newtype Kleisli m a b = Kleisli (a -> m b)
instance Monad m => Category (Kleisli m) where
id = Kleisli return
(Kleisli f) . (Kleisli g) = Kleisli (\x -> (g x) >>= f)
instance Monad m => Arrow (Kleisli m) where
arr f = Kleisli (return . f)
first (Kleisli f) = Kleisli (\(a,b) -> (f a) >>= \fa -> return (fa,b))
But, there are arrows which are not monads. Thus, there are arrows which do things that you can't do with monads. A good example is the arrow transformer to add some static information
data StaticT m c a b = StaticT m (c a b)
instance (Category c, Monoid m) => Category (StaticT m c) where
id = StaticT mempty id
(StaticT m1 f) . (StaticT m2 g) = StaticT (m1 <> m2) (f . g)
instance (Arrow c, Monoid m) => Arrow (StaticT m c) where
arr f = StaticT mempty (arr f)
first (StaticT m f) = StaticT m (first f)
this arrow tranformer is usefull because it can be used to keep track of static properties of a program. For example, you can use this to instrument your API to statically measure how many calls you are making.
I've always found it difficult to think of the issue in these terms: what is gained by using arrows. As other commenters have mentioned, every monad can trivially be turned into an arrow. So a monad can do all the arrow-y things. However, we can make Arrows that are not monads. That is to say, we can make types that can do these arrow-y things without making them support monadic binding. It might not seem like the case, but the monadic bind function is actually a pretty restrictive (hence powerful) operation that disqualifies many types.
See, to support bind, you have to be able to assert that that regardless of the input type, what's going to come out is going to be wrapped in the monad.
(>>=) :: forall a b. m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
But, how would we define bind for a type like data Foo a = F Bool a Surely, we could combine one Foo's a with another's but how would we combine the Bools. Imagine that the Bool marked, say, whether or not the value of the other parameter had changed. If I have a = Foo False whatever and I bind it into a function, I have no idea whether or not that function is going to change whatever. I can't write a bind that correctly sets the Bool. This is often called the problem of static meta-information. I cannot inspect the function being bound into to determine whether or not it will alter whatever.
There are several other cases like this: types that represent mutating functions, parsers that can exit early, etc. But the basic idea is this: monads set a high bar that not all types can clear. Arrows allow you to compose types (that may or may not be able to support this high, binding standard) in powerful ways without having to satisfy bind. Of course, you do lose some of the power of monads.
Moral of the story: there's nothing an arrow can do that monad cannot, because a monad can always be made into an arrow. However, sometimes you can't make your types into monads but you still want to allow them to have most of the compositional flexibility and power of monads.
Many of these ideas were inspired by the superb Understanding Haskell Arrows (backup)
Well, I'm going to cheat slightly here by changing the question from Arrow to Applicative. A lot of the same motives apply, and I know applicatives better than arrows. (And in fact, every Arrow is also an Applicative but not vice-versa, so I'm just taking it down a bit further down the slope to Functor.)
Just like every Monad is an Arrow, every Monad is also an Applicative. There are Applicatives that are not Monads (e.g., ZipList), so that's one possible answer.
But assume we're dealing with a type that admits of a Monad instance as well as an Applicative. Why might we sometime use the Applicative instance instead of Monad? Because Applicative is less powerful, and that comes with benefits:
There are things that we know that the Monad can do which the Applicative cannot. For example, if we use the Applicative instance of IO to assemble a compound action from simpler ones, none of the actions we compose may use the results of any of the others. All that applicative IO can do is execute the component actions and combine their results with pure functions.
Applicative types can be written so that we can do powerful static analysis of the actions before executing them. So you can write a program that inspects an Applicative action before executing it, figures out what it's going to do, and uses that to improve performance, tell the user what's going to be done, etc.
As an example of the first, I've been working on designing a kind of OLAP calculation language using Applicatives. The type admits of a Monad instance, but I've deliberately avoided having that, because I want the queries to be less powerful than what Monad would allow. Applicative means that each calculation will bottom out to a predictable number of queries.
As an example of the latter, I'll use a toy example from my still-under-development operational Applicative library. If you write the Reader monad as an operational Applicative program instead, you can examine the resulting Readers to count how many times they use the ask operation:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs, RankNTypes, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Control.Applicative.Operational
-- | A 'Reader' is an 'Applicative' program that uses the 'ReaderI'
-- instruction set.
type Reader r a = ProgramAp (ReaderI r) a
-- | The only 'Reader' instruction is 'Ask', which requires both the
-- environment and result type to be #r#.
data ReaderI r a where
Ask :: ReaderI r r
ask :: Reader r r
ask = singleton Ask
-- | We run a 'Reader' by translating each instruction in the instruction set
-- into an #r -> a# function. In the case of 'Ask' the translation is 'id'.
runReader :: forall r a. Reader r a -> r -> a
runReader = interpretAp evalI
where evalI :: forall x. ReaderI r x -> r -> x
evalI Ask = id
-- | Count how many times a 'Reader' uses the 'Ask' instruction. The 'viewAp'
-- function translates a 'ProgramAp' into a syntax tree that we can inspect.
countAsk :: forall r a. Reader r a -> Int
countAsk = count . viewAp
where count :: forall x. ProgramViewAp (ReaderI r) x -> Int
-- Pure :: a -> ProgamViewAp instruction a
count (Pure _) = 0
-- (:<**>) :: instruction a
-- -> ProgramViewAp instruction (a -> b)
-- -> ProgramViewAp instruction b
count (Ask :<**> k) = succ (count k)
As best as I understand, you can't write countAsk if you implement Reader as a monad. (My understanding comes from asking right here in Stack Overflow, I'll add.)
This same motive is actually one of the ideas behind Arrows. One of the big motivating examples for Arrow was a parser combinator design that uses "static information" to get better performance than monadic parsers. What they mean by "static information" is more or less the same as in my Reader example: it's possible to write an Arrow instance where the parsers can be inspected very much like my Readers can. Then the parsing library can, before executing a parser, inspect it to see if it can predict ahead of time that it will fail, and skip it in that case.
In one of the direct comments to your question, jberryman mentions that arrows may in fact be losing popularity. I'd add that as I see it, Applicative is what arrows are losing popularity to.
References:
Paolo Capriotti & Ambrus Kaposi, "Free Applicative Functors". Very highly recommended.
Gergo Erdi, "Static analysis with Applicatives". Inspirational, but I it hard to follow...
The question isn't quite right. It's like asking why would you eat oranges instead of apples, since apples seem more nutritious all around.
Arrows, like monads, are a way of expressing computations, but they have to obey a different set of laws. In particular, the laws tend to make arrows nicer to use when you have function-like things.
The Haskell Wiki lists a few introductions to arrows. In particular, the Wikibook is a nice high level introduction, and the tutorial by John Hughes is a good overview of the various kinds of arrows.
For a real world example, compare this tutorial which uses Hakyll 3's arrow-based interface, with roughly the same thing in Hakyll 4's monad-based interface.
I always found one of the really practical use cases of arrows to be stream programming.
Look at this:
data Stream a = Stream a (Stream a)
data SF a b = SF (a -> (b, SF a b))
SF a b is a synchronous stream function.
You can define a function from it that transforms Stream a into Stream b that never hangs and always outputs one b for one a:
(<<$>>) :: SF a b -> Stream a -> Stream b
SF f <<$>> Stream a as = let (b, sf') = f a
in Stream b $ sf' <<$>> as
There is an Arrow instance for SF. In particular, you can compose SFs:
(>>>) :: SF a b -> SF b c -> SF a c
Now try to do this in monads. It doesn't work well. You might say that Stream a == Reader Nat a and thus it's a monad, but the monad instance is very inefficient. Imagine the type of join:
join :: Stream (Stream a) -> Stream a
You have to extract the diagonal from a stream of streams. This means O(n) complexity for the nth element, but using the Arrow instance for SFs gives you O(1) in principle! (And also deals with time and space leaks.)
Most tutorials seem to give a lot of examples of monads (IO, state, list and so on) and then expect the reader to be able to abstract the overall principle and then they mention category theory. I don't tend to learn very well by trying generalise from examples and I would like to understand from a theoretical point of view why this pattern is so important.
Judging from this thread:
Can anyone explain Monads?
this is a common problem, and I've tried looking at most of the tutorials suggested (except the Brian Beck videos which won't play on my linux machine):
Does anyone know of a tutorial that starts from category theory and explains IO, state, list monads in those terms? the following is my unsuccessful attempt to do so:
As I understand it a monad consists of a triple: an endo-functor and two natural transformations.
The functor is usually shown with the type:
(a -> b) -> (m a -> m b)
I included the second bracket just to emphasise the symmetry.
But, this is an endofunctor, so shouldn't the domain and codomain be the same like this?:
(a -> b) -> (a -> b)
I think the answer is that the domain and codomain both have a type of:
(a -> b) | (m a -> m b) | (m m a -> m m b) and so on ...
But I'm not really sure if that works or fits in with the definition of the functor given?
When we move on to the natural transformation it gets even worse. If I understand correctly a natural transformation is a second order functor (with certain rules) that is a functor from one functor to another one. So since we have defined the functor above the general type of the natural transformations would be:
((a -> b) -> (m a -> m b)) -> ((a -> b) -> (m a -> m b))
But the actual natural transformations we are using have type:
a -> m a
m a -> (a ->m b) -> m b
Are these subsets of the general form above? and why are they natural transformations?
Martin
A quick disclaimer: I'm a little shaky on category theory in general, while I get the impression you have at least some familiarity with it. Hopefully I won't make too much of a hash of this...
Does anyone know of a tutorial that starts from category theory and explains IO, state, list monads in those terms?
First of all, ignore IO for now, it's full of dark magic. It works as a model of imperative computations for the same reasons that State works for modelling stateful computations, but unlike the latter IO is a black box with no way to deduce the monadic structure from the outside.
The functor is usually shown with the type: (a -> b) -> (m a -> m b) I included the second bracket just to emphasise the symmetry.
But, this is an endofunctor, so shouldn't the domain and codomain be the same like this?:
I suspect you are misinterpreting how type variables in Haskell relate to the category theory concepts.
First of all, yes, that specifies an endofunctor, on the category of Haskell types. A type variable such as a is not anything in this category, however; it's a variable that is (implicitly) universally quantified over all objects in the category. Thus, the type (a -> b) -> (a -> b) describes only endofunctors that map every object to itself.
Type constructors describe an injective function on objects, where the elements of the constructor's codomain cannot be described by any means except as an application of the type constructor. Even if two type constructors produce isomorphic results, the resulting types remain distinct. Note that type constructors are not, in the general case, functors.
The type variable m in the functor signature, then, represents a one-argument type constructor. Out of context this would normally be read as universal quantification, but that's incorrect in this case since no such function can exist. Rather, the type class definition binds m and allows the definition of such functions for specific type constructors.
The resulting function, then, says that for any type constructor m which has fmap defined, for any two objects a and b and a morphism between them, we can find a morphism between the types given by applying m to a and b.
Note that while the above does, of course, define an endofunctor on Hask, it is not even remotely general enough to describe all such endofunctors.
But the actual natural transformations we are using have type:
a -> m a
m a -> (a ->m b) -> m b
Are these subsets of the general form above? and why are they natural transformations?
Well, no, they aren't. A natural transformation is roughly a function (not a functor) between functors. The two natural transformations that specify a monad M look like I -> M where I is the identity functor, and M ∘ M -> M where ∘ is functor composition. In Haskell, we have no good way of working directly with either a true identity functor or with functor composition. Instead, we discard the identity functor to get just (Functor m) => a -> m a for the first, and write out nested type constructor application as (Functor m) => m (m a) -> m a for the second.
The first of these is obviously return; the second is a function called join, which is not part of the type class. However, join can be written in terms of (>>=), and the latter is more often useful in day-to-day programming.
As far as specific monads go, if you want a more mathematical description, here's a quick sketch of an example:
For some fixed type S, consider two functors F and G where F(x) = (S, x) and G(x) = S -> x (It should hopefully be obvious that these are indeed valid functors).
These functors are also adjoints; consider natural transformations unit :: x -> G (F x) and counit :: F (G x) -> x. Expanding the definitions gives us unit :: x -> (S -> (S, x)) and counit :: (S, S -> x) -> x. The types suggest uncurried function application and tuple construction; feel free to verify that those work as expected.
An adjunction gives rise to a monad by composition of the functors, so taking G ∘ F and expanding the definition, we get G (F x) = S -> (S, x), which is the definition of the State monad. The unit for the adjunction is of course return; and you should be able to use counit to define join.
This page does exactly that. I think your main confusion is that the class doesn't really make the Type a functor, but it defines a functor from the category of Haskell types into the category of that type.
Following the notation of the link, assuming F is a Haskell Functor, it means that there is a functor from the category of Hask to the category of F.
Roughly speaking, Haskell does its category theory all in just one category, whose objects are Haskell types and whose arrows are functions between these types. It's definitely not a general-purpose language for modelling category theory.
A (mathematical) functor is an operation turning things in one category into things in another, possibly entirely different, category. An endofunctor is then a functor which happens to have the same source and target categories. In Haskell, a functor is an operation turning things in the category of Haskell types into other things also in the category of Haskell types, so it is always an endofunctor.
[If you're following the mathematical literature, technically, the operation '(a->b)->(m a -> m b)' is just the arrow part of the endofunctor m, and 'm' is the object part]
When Haskellers talk about working 'in a monad' they really mean working in the Kleisli category of the monad. The Kleisli category of a monad is a thoroughly confusing beast at first, and normally needs at least two colours of ink to give a good explanation, so take the following attempt for what it is and check out some references (unfortunately Wikipedia is useless here for all but the straight definitions).
Suppose you have a monad 'm' on the category C of Haskell types. Its Kleisli category Kl(m) has the same objects as C, namely Haskell types, but an arrow a ~(f)~> b in Kl(m) is an arrow a -(f)-> mb in C. (I've used a squiggly line in my Kleisli arrow to distinguish the two). To reiterate: the objects and arrows of the Kl(C) are also objects and arrows of C but the arrows point to different objects in Kl(C) than in C. If this doesn't strike you as odd, read it again more carefully!
Concretely, consider the Maybe monad. Its Kleisli category is just the collection of Haskell types, and its arrows a ~(f)~> b are functions a -(f)-> Maybe b. Or consider the (State s) monad whose arrows a ~(f)~> b are functions a -(f)-> (State s b) == a -(f)-> (s->(s,b)). In any case, you're always writing a squiggly arrow as a shorthand for doing something to the type of the codomain of your functions.
[Note that State is not a monad, because the kind of State is * -> * -> *, so you need to supply one of the type parameters to turn it into a mathematical monad.]
So far so good, hopefully, but suppose you want to compose arrows a ~(f)~> b and b ~(g)~> c. These are really Haskell functions a -(f)-> mb and b -(g)-> mc which you cannot compose because the types don't match. The mathematical solution is to use the 'multiplication' natural transformation u:mm->m of the monad as follows: a ~(f)~> b ~(g)~> c == a -(f)-> mb -(mg)-> mmc -(u_c)-> mc to get an arrow a->mc which is a Kleisli arrow a ~(f;g)~> c as required.
Perhaps a concrete example helps here. In the Maybe monad, you cannot compose functions f : a -> Maybe b and g : b -> Maybe c directly, but by lifting g to
Maybe_g :: Maybe b -> Maybe (Maybe c)
Maybe_g Nothing = Nothing
Maybe_g (Just a) = Just (g a)
and using the 'obvious'
u :: Maybe (Maybe c) -> Maybe c
u Nothing = Nothing
u (Just Nothing) = Nothing
u (Just (Just c)) = Just c
you can form the composition u . Maybe_g . f which is the function a -> Maybe c that you wanted.
In the (State s) monad, it's similar but messier: Given two monadic functions a ~(f)~> b and b ~(g)~> c which are really a -(f)-> (s->(s,b)) and b -(g)-> (s->(s,c)) under the hood, you compose them by lifting g into
State_s_g :: (s->(s,b)) -> (s->(s,(s->(s,c))))
State_s_g p s1 = let (s2, b) = p s1 in (s2, g b)
then you apply the 'multiplication' natural transformation u, which is
u :: (s->(s,(s->(s,c)))) -> (s->(s,c))
u p1 s1 = let (s2, p2) = p1 s1 in p2 s2
which (sort of) plugs the final state of f into the initial state of g.
In Haskell, this turns out to be a bit of an unnatural way to work so instead there's the (>>=) function which basically does the same thing as u but in a way that makes it easier to implement and use. This is important: (>>=) is not the natural transformation 'u'. You can define each in terms of the other, so they're equivalent, but they're not the same thing. The Haskell version of 'u' is written join.
The other thing missing from this definition of Kleisli categories is the identity on each object: a ~(1_a)~> a which is really a -(n_a)-> ma where n is the 'unit' natural transformation. This is written return in Haskell, and doesn't seem to cause as much confusion.
I learned category theory before I came to Haskell, and I too have had difficulty with the mismatch between what mathematicians call a monad and what they look like in Haskell. It's no easier from the other direction!
Not sure I understand what was the question but yes, you are right, monad in Haskell is defined as a triple:
m :: * -> * -- this is endofunctor from haskell types to haskell types!
return :: a -> m a
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
but common definition from category theory is another triple:
m :: * -> *
return :: a -> m a
join :: m (m a) -> m a
It is slightly confusing but it's not so hard to show that these two definitions are equal.
To do that we need to define join in terms of (>>=) (and vice versa).
First step:
join :: m (m a) -> m a
join x = ?
This gives us x :: m (m a).
All we can do with something that have type m _ is to aply (>>=) to it:
(x >>=) :: (m a -> m b) -> m b
Now we need something as a second argument for (>>=), and also,
from the type of join we have constraint (x >>= y) :: ma.
So y here will have type y :: ma -> ma and id :: a -> a fits it very well:
join x = x >>= id
The other way
(>>=) :: ma -> (a -> mb) -> m b
(>>=) x y = ?
Where x :: m a and y :: a -> m b.
To get m b from x and y we need something of type a.
Unfortunately, we can't extract a from m a. But we can substitute it for something else (remember, monad is a functor also):
fmap :: (a -> b) -> m a -> m b
fmap y x :: m (m b)
And it's perfectly fits as argument for join: (>>=) x y = join (fmap y x).
The best way to look at monads and computational effects is to start with where Haskell got the notion of monads for computational effects from, and then look at Haskell after you understand that. See this paper in particular: Notions of Computation and Monads, by E. Moggi.
See also Moggi's earlier paper which shows how monads work for the lambda calculus alone: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.2787
The fact that monads capture substitution, among other things (http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/12/where-do-monads-come-from.html), and substitution is key to the lambda calculus, should give a good clue as to why they have so much expressive power.
While monads originally came from category theory, this doesn't mean that category theory is the only abstract context in which you can view them. A different viewpoint is given by operational semantics. For an introduction, have a look at my Operational Monad Tutorial.
One way to look at IO is to consider it as a strange kind of state monad. Remember that the state monad looks like:
data State s a = State (s -> (s, a))
where the "s" argument is the data type you want to thread through the computation. Also, this version of "State" doesn't have "get" and "put" actions and we don't export the constructor.
Now imagine a type
data RealWorld = RealWorld ......
This has no real definition, but notionally a value of type RealWorld holds the state of the entire universe outside the computer. Of course we can never have a value of type RealWorld, but you can imagine something like:
getChar :: RealWorld -> (RealWorld, Char)
In other words the "getChar" function takes a state of the universe before the keyboard button has been pressed, and returns the key pressed plus the state of the universe after the key has been pressed. Of course the problem is that the previous state of the world is still available to be referenced, which can't happen in reality.
But now we write this:
type IO = State RealWorld
getChar :: IO Char
Notionally, all we have done is wrap the previous version of "getChar" as a state action. But by doing this we can no longer access the "RealWorld" values because they are wrapped up inside the State monad.
So when a Haskell program wants to change a lightbulb it takes hold of the bulb and applies a "rotate" function to the RealWorld value inside IO.
For me, so far, the explanation that comes closest to tie together monads in category theory and monads in Haskell is that monads are a monid whose objects have the type a->m b. I can see that these objects are very close to an endofunctor and so the composition of such functions are related to an imperative sequence of program statements. Also functions which return IO functions are valid in pure functional code until the inner function is called from outside.
This id element is 'a -> m a' which fits in very well but the multiplication element is function composition which should be:
(>=>) :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c)
This is not quite function composition, but close enough (I think to get true function composition we need a complementary function which turns m b back into a, then we get function composition if we apply these in pairs?), I'm not quite sure how to get from that to this:
(>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
I've got a feeling I may have seen an explanation of this in all the stuff that I read, without understanding its significance the first time through, so I will do some re-reading to try to (re)find an explanation of this.
The other thing I would like to do is link together all the different category theory explanations: endofunctor+2 natural transformations, Kleisli category, a monoid whose objects are monoids and so on. For me the thing that seems to link all these explanations is that they are two level. That is, normally we treat category objects as black-boxes where we imply their properties from their outside interactions, but here there seems to be a need to go one level inside the objects to see what’s going on? We can explain monads without this but only if we accept apparently arbitrary constructions.
Martin
See this question: is chaining operations the only thing that the monad class solves?
In it, I explain my vision that we must differentiate between the Monad class and individual types that solve individual problems. The Monad class, by itself, only solve the important problem of "chaining operations with choice" and mades this solution available to types being instance of it (by means of "inheritance").
On the other hand, if a given type that solves a given problem faces the problem of "chaining operations with choice" then, it should be made an instance (inherit) of the Monad class.
The fact is that problems not get solved merely by being a Monad. It would be like saying that "wheels" solve many problems, but actually "wheels" only solve a problem, and things with wheels solve many different problems.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 5 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
How do these functions in the Applicative typeclass work?
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(*>) :: f a -> f b -> f b
(<*) :: f a -> f b -> f a
(That is, if they weren't operators, what might they be called?)
As a side note, if you could rename pure to something more friendly to non-mathematicians, what would you call it?
Sorry, I don't really know my math, so I'm curious how to pronounce the functions in the Applicative typeclass
Knowing your math, or not, is largely irrelevant here, I think. As you're probably aware, Haskell borrows a few bits of terminology from various fields of abstract math, most notably Category Theory, from whence we get functors and monads. The use of these terms in Haskell diverges somewhat from the formal mathematical definitions, but they're usually close enough to be good descriptive terms anyway.
The Applicative type class sits somewhere between Functor and Monad, so one would expect it to have a similar mathematical basis. The documentation for the Control.Applicative module begins with:
This module describes a structure intermediate between a functor and a monad: it provides pure expressions and sequencing, but no binding. (Technically, a strong lax monoidal functor.)
Hmm.
class (Functor f) => StrongLaxMonoidalFunctor f where
. . .
Not quite as catchy as Monad, I think.
What all this basically boils down to is that Applicative doesn't correspond to any concept that's particularly interesting mathematically, so there's no ready-made terms lying around that capture the way it's used in Haskell. So, set the math aside for now.
If we want to know what to call (<*>) it might help to know what it basically means.
So what's up with Applicative, anyway, and why do we call it that?
What Applicative amounts to in practice is a way to lift arbitrary functions into a Functor. Consider the combination of Maybe (arguably the simplest non-trivial Functor) and Bool (likewise the simplest non-trivial data type).
maybeNot :: Maybe Bool -> Maybe Bool
maybeNot = fmap not
The function fmap lets us lift not from working on Bool to working on Maybe Bool. But what if we want to lift (&&)?
maybeAnd' :: Maybe Bool -> Maybe (Bool -> Bool)
maybeAnd' = fmap (&&)
Well, that's not what we want at all! In fact, it's pretty much useless. We can try to be clever and sneak another Bool into Maybe through the back...
maybeAnd'' :: Maybe Bool -> Bool -> Maybe Bool
maybeAnd'' x y = fmap ($ y) (fmap (&&) x)
...but that's no good. For one thing, it's wrong. For another thing, it's ugly. We could keep trying, but it turns out that there's no way to lift a function of multiple arguments to work on an arbitrary Functor. Annoying!
On the other hand, we could do it easily if we used Maybe's Monad instance:
maybeAnd :: Maybe Bool -> Maybe Bool -> Maybe Bool
maybeAnd x y = do x' <- x
y' <- y
return (x' && y')
Now, that's a lot of hassle just to translate a simple function--which is why Control.Monad provides a function to do it automatically, liftM2. The 2 in its name refers to the fact that it works on functions of exactly two arguments; similar functions exist for 3, 4, and 5 argument functions. These functions are better, but not perfect, and specifying the number of arguments is ugly and clumsy.
Which brings us to the paper that introduced the Applicative type class. In it, the authors make essentially two observations:
Lifting multi-argument functions into a Functor is a very natural thing to do
Doing so doesn't require the full capabilities of a Monad
Normal function application is written by simple juxtaposition of terms, so to make "lifted application" as simple and natural as possible, the paper introduces infix operators to stand in for application, lifted into the Functor, and a type class to provide what's needed for that.
All of which brings us to the following point: (<*>) simply represents function application--so why pronounce it any differently than you do the whitespace "juxtaposition operator"?
But if that's not very satisfying, we can observe that the Control.Monad module also provides a function that does the same thing for monads:
ap :: (Monad m) => m (a -> b) -> m a -> m b
Where ap is, of course, short for "apply". Since any Monad can be Applicative, and ap needs only the subset of features present in the latter, we can perhaps say that if (<*>) weren't an operator, it should be called ap.
We can also approach things from the other direction. The Functor lifting operation is called fmap because it's a generalization of the map operation on lists. What sort of function on lists would work like (<*>)? There's what ap does on lists, of course, but that's not particularly useful on its own.
In fact, there's a perhaps more natural interpretation for lists. What comes to mind when you look at the following type signature?
listApply :: [a -> b] -> [a] -> [b]
There's something just so tempting about the idea of lining the lists up in parallel, applying each function in the first to the corresponding element of the second. Unfortunately for our old friend Monad, this simple operation violates the monad laws if the lists are of different lengths. But it makes a fine Applicative, in which case (<*>) becomes a way of stringing together a generalized version of zipWith, so perhaps we can imagine calling it fzipWith?
This zipping idea actually brings us full circle. Recall that math stuff earlier, about monoidal functors? As the name suggests, these are a way of combining the structure of monoids and functors, both of which are familiar Haskell type classes:
class Functor f where
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
class Monoid a where
mempty :: a
mappend :: a -> a -> a
What would these look like if you put them in a box together and shook it up a bit? From Functor we'll keep the idea of a structure independent of its type parameter, and from Monoid we'll keep the overall form of the functions:
class (Functor f) => MonoidalFunctor f where
mfEmpty :: f ?
mfAppend :: f ? -> f ? -> f ?
We don't want to assume that there's a way to create an truly "empty" Functor, and we can't conjure up a value of an arbitrary type, so we'll fix the type of mfEmpty as f ().
We also don't want to force mfAppend to need a consistent type parameter, so now we have this:
class (Functor f) => MonoidalFunctor f where
mfEmpty :: f ()
mfAppend :: f a -> f b -> f ?
What's the result type for mfAppend? We have two arbitrary types we know nothing about, so we don't have many options. The most sensible thing is to just keep both:
class (Functor f) => MonoidalFunctor f where
mfEmpty :: f ()
mfAppend :: f a -> f b -> f (a, b)
At which point mfAppend is now clearly a generalized version of zip on lists, and we can reconstruct Applicative easily:
mfPure x = fmap (\() -> x) mfEmpty
mfApply f x = fmap (\(f, x) -> f x) (mfAppend f x)
This also shows us that pure is related to the identity element of a Monoid, so other good names for it might be anything suggesting a unit value, a null operation, or such.
That was lengthy, so to summarize:
(<*>) is just a modified function application, so you can either read it as "ap" or "apply", or elide it entirely the way you would normal function application.
(<*>) also roughly generalizes zipWith on lists, so you can read it as "zip functors with", similarly to reading fmap as "map a functor with".
The first is closer to the intent of the Applicative type class--as the name suggests--so that's what I recommend.
In fact, I encourage liberal use, and non-pronunciation, of all lifted application operators:
(<$>), which lifts a single-argument function into a Functor
(<*>), which chains a multi-argument function through an Applicative
(=<<), which binds a function that enters a Monad onto an existing computation
All three are, at heart, just regular function application, spiced up a little bit.
Since I have no ambitions of improving on C. A. McCann's technical answer, I'll tackle the more fluffy one:
If you could rename pure to something more friendly to podunks like me, what would you call it?
As an alternative, especially since there is no end to the constant angst-and-betrayal-filled cried against the Monad version, called "return", I propose another name, which suggests its function in a way that can satisfy the most imperative of imperative programmers, and the most functional of...well, hopefully, everyone can complain the same about: inject.
Take a value. "Inject" it into the Functor, Applicative, Monad, or what-have-you. I vote for "inject", and I approved this message.
In brief:
<*> you can call it apply. So Maybe f <*> Maybe a can be pronounced as apply Maybe f over Maybe a.
You could rename pure to of, like many JavaScript libraries do. In JS you can create a Maybe with Maybe.of(a).
Also, Haskell's wiki has a page on pronunciation of language operators here
(<*>) -- Tie Fighter
(*>) -- Right Tie
(<*) -- Left Tie
pure -- also called "return"
Source: Haskell Programming from First Principles, by Chris Allen and Julie Moronuki
Say I have two type classes defined as follows that are identical in function but different in names:
class Monad m where
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
return :: a -> m a
class PhantomMonad p where
pbind :: p a -> (a -> p b) -> p b
preturn :: a -> p a
Is there a way to tie these two classes together so something that is an instance of PhantomMonad will automatically be an instance of Monad, or will instances for each class have to be explicitly written? Any insight would be most appreciated, thanks!
Good answer: No, what you're hoping to do isn't really viable. You can write an instance that looks like it does what you want, possibly needing some GHC extensions in the process, but it won't work the way you you'd like it to.
Unwise answer: You can probably accomplish what you want using scary type-level metaprogramming, but it may get complicated. This really isn't recommended unless you absolutely need this to work for some reason.
Officially instances can't really depend on other instances, because GHC only looks at the "instance head" when making decisions, and class constraints are in the "context". To make something like a "type class synonym" here, you'd have to write what looks like an instance of Monad for all possible types, which obviously doesn't make sense. You'll be overlapping with other instances of Monad, which has its own problems.
On top of all that, I don't think such an instance will satisfy the termination check requirements for instance resolution, so you'd also need the UndecidableInstances extension, which means the ability to write instances that will send GHC's type checker into an infinite loop.
If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, browse around on Oleg Kiselyov's website a bit; he's sort of the patron saint of type-level metaprogramming in Haskell.
It's fun stuff, to be sure, but if you just want to write code and have it work, probably not worth the pain.
Edit: Okay, in hindsight I've overstated the issue here. Something like PhantomMonad works fine as a one-off and should do what you want, given the Overlapping- and UndecidableInstances GHC extensions. The complicated stuff starts up when you want to do anything much more complicated than what's in the question. My sincere thanks to Norman Ramsey for calling me on it--I really should have known better.
I still don't really recommend doing this sort of thing without good reason, but it's not as bad as I made it sound. Mea culpa.
That's an unusual design. Can you not just remove the PhantomMonad, since it is isomorphic to the other class.
Is there a way to tie these two classes together so something that is an instance of PhantomMonad will automatically be an instance of Monad?
Yes, but it requires the slightly alarming language extensions FlexibleInstances and UndecidableInstances:
instance (PhantomMonad m) => Monad m where
return = preturn
(>>=) = pbind
FlexibleInstances is not so bad, but the risk of undecidability is slightly more alarming. The issue is that in the inference rule, nothing is getting smaller, so if you combine this instance declaration with another similar one (like say the reverse direction), you could easily get the type checker to loop forever.
I'm generally comfortable using FlexibleInstances, but I tend to avoid UndecidableInstances without a very good reason. Here I agree with Don Stewart's suggestion that you'd be better off using Monad to begin with. But your question is more in the nature of a thought experiment, the answer is that you can do what you want without getting into an Oleg level of scariness.
Another solution is to use newtype. This isn't exactly what you want, but is often used in such cases.
This allows linking different ways of specifying the same structure. For example, ArrowApply (from Control.Arrow) and Monad are equivalent. You can use Kleisli to make an ArrowApply out of a monad, and ArrowMonad to make a monad out of ArrowApply.
Also, one-way wrappers are possible: WrapMonad (in Control.Applicative) forms an applicative out of a monad.
class PhantomMonad p where
pbind :: p a -> (a -> p b) -> p b
preturn :: a -> p a
newtype WrapPhantom m a = WrapPhantom { unWrapPhantom :: m a }
newtype WrapReal m a = WrapReal { unWrapReal :: m a }
instance Monad m => PhantomMonad (WrapPhantom m) where
pbind (WrapPhantom x) f = WrapPhantom (x >>= (unWrapPhantom . f))
preturn = WrapPhantom . return
instance PhantomMonad m => Monad (WrapReal m) where
WrapReal x >>= f = WrapReal (x `pbind` (unWrapReal . f))
return = WrapReal . preturn
Though this doesn't really make sense, try
instance Monad m => PhantomMonad m where
pbind = (>>=)
preturn = return
(maybe with some compiler warnings deactivated).