I want to build a function with type signature Time t => t -> Bool. When looking at the documentation of Data.Time there are several different types that work on time, such as: UTCTime, LocalTime, and ZonedTime, but I find no typeclass that unifies them. Is there any such one or should I treat time just as a Num? (i.e. a continuum)
The vector-space package has a affine space typeclass.
Diff p is here the time duration type (which should be an instance of VectorSpace), and p is the time point type. You'll need an extra Ord instance for comparisons.
This provides you with linear interpolation between time points for free.
There is no such type class in the standard time library, but it is possible to implement one by yourself.
However, usually you should construct your program logic in such a way that UTCTime is used for all time-based calculations (and this is not Haskell-specific). LocalTime and ZonedTime should just be used to convert back and forth between UTC and a presentation that is showed to the user or for data that comes from external sources. This is probably the reason there are no ready-made functions for calculating time-diffs and time additions for local and zoned time types.
Time is slightly strange.
Time can refer to a specific instant in time (e.g., 09:27 AM, 14 Feb 1821 AD), or a duration of time (e.g., 6 minutes).
It makes sense to add and subtract durations. It doesn't really make sense to find the sum of two instants in time; what would this represent? Adding a duration to an instant would give you another instant; that makes sense. And subtracting one instance from another ought to give you the duration between them.
In summary, temporal arithmetic is not as simple as you might imagine.
Now, what the time package provides? I have no idea. It sounds like all the times you mentioned are instants in time, not time durations...
Take a look at the HasTime class in the time-lens package.
It gives you (both read and write) access to the TimeOfDay component of all those structures. So, if you implement your function for TimeOfDay, it can be easily generalised to LocalTime, ZonedTime and UTCTime.
According to the documentation (http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.0.2/html/libraries/time-1.2.0.3/Data-Time-Format.html), all of UTCTime, ZonedTime and LocalTime are instances of the typeclasses FormatTime and ParseTime. They should be what you are looking for.
Related
I am implementing an algorithm using Data.Ratio (convergents of continued fractions).
However, I encounter two obstacles:
The algorithm starts with the fraction 1%0 - but this throws a zero denominator exception.
I would like to pattern match the constructor a :% b
I was exploring on hackage. An in particular the source seems to be using exactly these features (e.g. defining infinity = 1 :% 0, or pattern matching for numerator).
As beginner, I am also confused where it is determined that (%), numerator and such are exposed to me, but not infinity and (:%).
I have already made a dirty workaround using a tuple of integers, but it seems silly to reinvent the wheel about something so trivial.
Also would be nice to learn how read the source which functions are exposed.
They aren't exported precisely to prevent people from doing stuff like this. See, the type
data Ratio a = a:%a
contains too many values. In particular, e.g. 2/6 and 3/9 are actually the same number in ℚ and both represented by 1:%3. Thus, 2:%6 is in fact an illegal value, and so is, sure enough, 1:%0. Or it might be legal but all functions know how to treat them so 2:%6 is for all observable means equal to 1:%3 – I don't in fact know which of these options GHC chooses, but at any rate it's an implementation detail and could change in future releases without notice.
If the library authors themselves use such values for e.g. optimisation tricks that's one thing – they have after all full control over any algorithmic details and any undefined behaviour that could arise. But if users got to construct such values, it would result in brittle code.
So – if you find yourself starting an algorithm with 1/0, then you should indeed not use Ratio at all there but simply store numerator and denominator in a plain tuple, which has no such issues, and only make the final result a Ratio with %.
I would like to represent the timestamp coming from an HTMLMediaElement. Its defining characteristics are:
Its value is represented as a Double
It can be queried at any time using getCurrentTime :: IO Double (as partially applied on a given HTMLMediaElement)
It is potentially continuously changing (whenever the media player is playing)
My initial plan was to represent it as a Behavior t Double that re-runs the IO Double every time it is observed, but that hasn't worked out too well.
Things I've tried:
Using a Behavior that is prodded under the hood at a fixed frequency, as described in the workaround section of this question
Passing an Event t () representing the desired sampling frequency, and returning an Event t Double that holds the coinciding timestamps
I don't really like either -- the first one either couples the behaviour (sorry) too much to my specific use case (if I use the eventual sampling frequency I'll use in my app) or seems wasteful (if I use something like 1 kHz sampling when creating the Behavior just to then sample it at 60 Hz on the application end), and the second is quite inflexible if you want to do more than one thing with the timestamp at different sampling rates.
Right now, using an Event to explicitly sample the time (your second option) value is your best bet. We haven't yet created a way to write Behaviors that lazily poll outside resources, although that is something that I hope we'll be able to get done soon.
Keep in mind that, with your second option, you don't necessarily need to use a specific sampling rate; instead, you can sample on-demand, and even have multiple locations doing that sampling. It's not perfect, but I hope that'll let you get the job done!
Behaviors are ubiquitously defined as “time-varying value”s1.
Why? time being the dependency/parameter for varying values is very uncommon.
My intuition for FRP would be to have behaviors as event-varying values instead; it is much more common, much more simple, I wage a much more of an efficient idea, and extensible enough to support time too (tick event).
For instance, if you write a counter, you don't care about time/associated timestamps, you just care about the "Increase-button clicked" and "Decrease-button clicked" events.
If you write a game and want a position/force behavior, you just care about the WASD/arrow keys held events, etc. (unless you ban your players for moving to the left in the afternoon; how iniquitous!).
So: Why time is a consideration at all? why timestamps? why are some libraries (e.g. reactive-banana, reactive) take it up to the extent of having Future, Moment values? Why work with event-streams instead of just responding to an event occurrence? All of this just seems to over-complicate a simple idea (event-varying/event-driven value); what's the gain? what problem are we solving here? (I'd love to also get a concrete example along with a wonderful explanation, if possible).
1 Behaviors have been defined so here, here, here... & pretty much everywhere I've encountered.
Behaviors differ from Events primarily in that a Behavior has a value right now while an Event only has a value whenever a new event comes in.
So what do we mean by "right now"? Technically all changes are implemented as push or pull semantics over event streams, so we can only possibly mean "the most recent value as of the last event of consequence for this Behavior". But that's a fairly hairy concept—in practice "now" is much simpler.
The reasoning for why "now" is simpler comes down to the API. Here are two examples from Reactive Banana.
Eventually an FRP system must always produce some kind of externally visible change. In Reactive Banana this is facilitated by the reactimate :: Event (IO ()) -> Moment () function which consumes event streams. There is no way to have a Behavior trigger external changes---you always have to do something like reactimate (someBehavior <# sampleTickEvent) to sample the behavior at concrete times.
Behaviors are Applicatives unlike Events. Why? Well, let's assume Event was an applicative and think about what happens when we have two event streams f and x and write f <*> x: since events occur all at different times the chances of f and x being defined simultaneously are (almost certainly) 0. So f <*> x would always mean the empty event stream which is useless.
What you really want is for f <*> x to cache the most current values for each and take their combined value "all of the time". That's really confusing concept to talk about in terms of an event stream, so instead lets consider f and x as taking values for all points in time. Now f <*> x is also defined as taking values for all points in time. We've just invented Behaviors.
Because it was the simplest way I could think of to give a precise denotation (implementation-independent meaning) to the notion of behaviors, including the sorts of operations I wanted, including differentiation and integration, as well as tracking one or more other behaviors (including but not limited to user-generated behavior).
Why? time being the dependency/parameter for varying values is very uncommon.
I suspect that you're confusing the construction (recipe) of a behavior with its meaning. For instance, a behavior might be constructed via a dependency on something like user input, possibly with additional synthetic transformation. So there's the recipe. The meaning, however, is simply a function of time, related to the time-function that is the user input. Note that by "function", I mean in the math sense of the word: a (deterministic) mapping from domain (time) to range (value), not in the sense that there's a purely programmatic description.
I've seen many questions asking why time matters and why continuous time. If you apply the simple discipline of giving a mathematical meaning in the style of denotational semantics (a simple and familiar style for functional programmers), the issues become much clearer.
If you really want to grok the essence of and thinking behind FRP, I recommend you read my answer to "Specification for a Functional Reactive Programming language" and follow pointers, including "What is Functional Reactive Programming".
Conal Elliott's Push-Pull FRP paper describes event-varying data, where the only points in time that are interesting are when events occcur. Reactive event-varying data is the current value and the next Event that will change it. An Event is a Future point in the event-varying Reactive data.
data Reactive a = a ‘Stepper ‘ Event a
newtype Event a = Ev (Future (Reactive a))
The Future doesn't need to have a time associated with it, it just need to represent the idea of a value that hasn't happened yet. In an impure language with events, for example, a future can be an event handle and a value. When the event occurs, you set the value and raise the handle.
Reactive a has a value for a at all points in time, so why would we need Behaviors? Let's make a simple game. In between when the user presses the WASD keys, the character, accelerated by the force applied, still moves on the screen. The character's position at different points in time is different, even though no event has occurred in the intervening time. This is what a Behavior describes - something that not only has a value at all points in time, but its value can be different at all points in time, even with no intervening events.
One way to describe Behaviors would be to repeat what we just stated. Behaviors are things that can change in-between events. In-between events they are time-varying values, or functions of time.
type Behavior a = Reactive (Time -> a)
We don't need Behavior, we could simply add events for clock ticks, and write all of the logic in our entire game in terms of these tick events. This is undesirable to some developers as the code declaring what our game is is now intermingled with the code providing how it is implemented. Behaviors allow the developer to separate this logic between the description of the game in terms of time-varying variables and the implementation of the engine that executes that description.
Suppose you're building a fairly large simulation in Haskell. There are many different types of entities whose attributes update as the simulation progresses. Let's say, for the sake of example, that your entities are called Monkeys, Elephants, Bears, etc..
What is your preferred method for maintaining these entities' states?
The first and most obvious approach I thought of was this:
mainLoop :: [Monkey] -> [Elephant] -> [Bear] -> String
mainLoop monkeys elephants bears =
let monkeys' = updateMonkeys monkeys
elephants' = updateElephants elephants
bears' = updateBears bears
in
if shouldExit monkeys elephants bears then "Done" else
mainLoop monkeys' elephants' bears'
It's already ugly having each type of entity explicitly mentioned in the mainLoop function signature. You can imagine how it would get absolutely awful if you had, say, 20 types of entities. (20 is not unreasonable for complex simulations.) So I think this is an unacceptable approach. But its saving grace is that functions like updateMonkeys are very explicit in what they do: They take a list of Monkeys and return a new one.
So then the next thought would be to roll everything into one big data structure that holds all state, thus cleaning up the signature of mainLoop:
mainLoop :: GameState -> String
mainLoop gs0 =
let gs1 = updateMonkeys gs0
gs2 = updateElephants gs1
gs3 = updateBears gs2
in
if shouldExit gs0 then "Done" else
mainLoop gs3
Some would suggest that we wrap GameState up in a State Monad and call updateMonkeys etc. in a do. That's fine. Some would rather suggest we clean it up with function composition. Also fine, I think. (BTW, I'm a novice with Haskell, so maybe I'm wrong about some of this.)
But then the problem is, functions like updateMonkeys don't give you useful information from their type signature. You can't really be sure what they do. Sure, updateMonkeys is a descriptive name, but that's little consolation. When I pass in a god object and say "please update my global state," I feel like we're back in the imperative world. It feels like global variables by another name: You have a function that does something to the global state, you call it, and you hope for the best. (I suppose you still avoid some concurrency problems that would be present with global variables in an imperative program. But meh, concurrency isn't nearly the only thing wrong with global variables.)
A further problem is this: Suppose the objects need to interact. For example, we have a function like this:
stomp :: Elephant -> Monkey -> (Elephant, Monkey)
stomp elephant monkey =
(elongateEvilGrin elephant, decrementHealth monkey)
Say this gets called in updateElephants, because that's where we check to see if any of the elephants are in stomping range of any monkeys. How do you elegantly propagate the changes to both the monkeys and elephants in this scenario? In our second example, updateElephants takes and returns a god object, so it could effect both changes. But this just muddies the waters further and reinforces my point: With the god object, you're effectively just mutating global variables. And if you're not using the god object, I'm not sure how you'd propagate those types of changes.
What to do? Surely many programs need to manage complex state, so I'm guessing there are some well-known approaches to this problem.
Just for the sake of comparison, here's how I might solve the problem in the OOP world. There would be Monkey, Elephant, etc. objects. I'd probably have class methods to do lookups in the set of all live animals. Maybe you could lookup by location, by ID, whatever. Thanks to the data structures underlying the lookup functions, they'd stay allocated on the heap. (I'm assuming GC or reference counting.) Their member variables would get mutated all the time. Any method of any class would be able to mutate any live animal of any other class. E.g. an Elephant could have a stomp method that would decrement the health of a passed-in Monkey object, and there would be no need to pass that
Likewise, in an Erlang or other actor-oriented design, you could solve these problems fairly elegantly: Each actor maintains its own loop and thus its own state, so you never need a god object. And message passing allows one object's activities to trigger changes in other objects without passing a bunch of stuff all the way back up the call stack. Yet I have heard it said that actors in Haskell are frowned upon.
The answer is functional reactive programming (FRP). It it a hybrid of two coding styles: component state management and time-dependent values. Since FRP is actually a whole family of design patterns, I want to be more specific: I recommend Netwire.
The underlying idea is very simple: You write many small, self-contained components each with their own local state. This is practically equivalent to time-dependent values, because each time you query such a component you may get a different answer and cause a local state update. Then you combine those components to form your actual program.
While this sounds complicated and inefficient it's actually just a very thin layer around regular functions. The design pattern implemented by Netwire is inspired by AFRP (Arrowized Functional Reactive Programming). It's probably different enough to deserve its own name (WFRP?). You may want to read the tutorial.
In any case a small demo follows. Your building blocks are wires:
myWire :: WireP A B
Think of this as a component. It is a time-varying value of type B that depends on a time-varying value of type A, for example a particle in a simulator:
particle :: WireP [Particle] Particle
It depends on a list of particles (for example all currently existing particles) and is itself a particle. Let's use a predefined wire (with a simplified type):
time :: WireP a Time
This is a time-varying value of type Time (= Double). Well, it's time itself (starting at 0 counted from whenever the wire network was started). Since it doesn't depend on another time-varying value you can feed it whatever you want, hence the polymorphic input type. There are also constant wires (time-varying values that don't change over time):
pure 15 :: Wire a Integer
-- or even:
15 :: Wire a Integer
To connect two wires you simply use categorical composition:
integral_ 3 . 15
This gives you a clock at 15x real time speed (the integral of 15 over time) starting at 3 (the integration constant). Thanks to various class instances wires are very handy to combine. You can use your regular operators as well as applicative style or arrow style. Want a clock that starts at 10 and is twice the real time speed?
10 + 2*time
Want a particle that starts and (0, 0) with (0, 0) velocity and accelerates with (2, 1) per second per second?
integral_ (0, 0) . integral_ (0, 0) . pure (2, 1)
Want to display statistics while the user presses the spacebar?
stats . keyDown Spacebar <|> "stats currently disabled"
This is just a small fraction of what Netwire can do for you.
I know this is old topic. But I am facing the same problem right now while trying to implement Rail Fence cipher exercise from exercism.io. It is quite disappointing to see such a common problem having such poor attention in Haskell. I don't take it that to do some as simple as maintaining state I need to learn FRP. So, I continued googling and found solution looking more straightforward - State monad: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads/State
So, I have a system of stateful processors that are chained together. For example, a processor might output the average of its last 10 inputs. It requires state to calculate this average.
I would like to submit values to the system, and get the outputs. I also would like to jump back and restore the state at any time in the past. Ie. I run 1000 values through the system. Now I want to "move" the system back to exactly as it was after I had sent the 500th value through. Then I want to "replay" the system from that point again.
I also need to be able to persist the historical state to disk so I can restore the whole thing again some time in the future (and still have the move back and replay functions work). And of course, I need to do this with gigabytes of data, and have it be extremely fast :)
I had been approaching it using closures to hold state. But I'm wondering if it would make more sense to use a monad. I have only read through 3 or 4 analogies for monads so don't understand them well yet, so feel free to educate me.
If each processor modifies its state in the monad in such a way that its history is kept and it is tied to an id for each processing step. And then somehow the monad is able to switch its state to a past step id and run the system with the monad in that state. And the monad would have some mechanism for (de)serializing itself for storage.
(and given the size of the data... it really shouldn't even all be in memory, which would mean the monad would need to be mapped to disk, cached, etc...)
Is there an existing library/mechanism/approach/concept that has already been done to accomplish or assist in accomplishing what I'm trying to do?
So, I have a system of stateful processors that are chained together. For example, a processor might output the average of its last 10 inputs. It requires state to calculate this average.
First of all, it sounds like what you have are not just "stateful processors" but something like finite-state machines and/or transducers. This is probably a good place to start for research.
I would like to submit values to the system, and get the outputs. I also would like to jump back and restore the state at any time in the past. Ie. I run 1000 values through the system. Now I want to "move" the system back to exactly as it was after I had sent the 500th value through. Then I want to "replay" the system from that point again.
The simplest approach here, of course, is to simply keep a log of all prior states. But since it sounds like you have a great deal of data, the storage needed could easily become prohibitive. I would recommend thinking about how you might construct your processors in a way that could avoid this, e.g.:
If a processor's state can be reconstructed easily from the states of its neighbors a few steps prior, you can avoid logging it directly
If a processor is easily reversible in some situations, you don't need to log those immediately; rewinding can be calculated directly, and logging can be done as periodic snapshots
If you can nail a processor down to a very small number of states, make sure to do so.
If a processor behaves in very predictable ways on certain kinds of input, you can record that as such--e.g., if it idles on numeric input below some cutoff, rather than logging each value just log "idled for N steps".
I also need to be able to persist the historical state to disk so I can restore the whole thing again some time in the future (and still have the move back and replay functions work). And of course, I need to do this with gigabytes of data, and have it be extremely fast :)
Explicit state is your friend. Functions are a convenient way to represent active state machines, but they can't be serialized in any simple way. You want a clean separation of a (basically static) network of processors vs. a series of internal states used by each processor to calculate the next step.
Is there an existing library/mechanism/approach/concept that has already been done to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Does the monad approach make sense? Are there other better/special approaches that would help it do this efficiently especially given the enormous amount of data I have to manage?
If most of your processors resemble finite state transducers, and you need to have processors that take inputs of various types and produce different types of outputs, what you probably want is actually something with a structure based on Arrows, which gives you an abstraction for things that compose "like functions" in some sense, e.g., connecting the input of one processor to the output of another.
Furthermore, as long as you avoid the ArrowApply class and make sure that your state machine model only returns an output value and a new state, you'll be guaranteed to avoid implicit state because (unlike functions) Arrows aren't automatically higher-order.
Given the size of the data... it really shouldn't even all be in memory, which would mean the monad would need to be mapped to disk, cached, etc...
Given a static representation of your processor network, it shouldn't be too difficult to also provide an incremental input/output system that would read the data, serialize/deserialize the state, and write any output.
As a quick, rough starting point, here's an example of probably the simplest version of what I've outlined above, ignoring the logging issue for the moment:
data Transducer s a b = Transducer { curState :: s
, runStep :: s -> a -> (s, b)
}
runTransducer :: Transducer s a b -> [a] -> [b]
runTransducer t [] = (t, [])
runTransducer t (x:xs) = let (s, y) = runStep t (curState t) x
(t', ys) = runTransducer (t { curState = s }) xs
in (t', y:ys)
It's a simple, generic processor with explicit internal state of type s, input of type a, and output of type b. The runTransducer function shoves a list of inputs through, updating the state value manually, and collects a list of outputs.
P.S. -- since you were asking about monads, you might want to know if the example I gave is one. In fact, it's a combination of multiple common monads, though which ones depends on how you look at it. However, I've deliberately avoided treating it as a monad! The thing is, monads capture only abstractions that are in some sense very powerful, but that same power also makes them more resistant in some ways to optimization and static analysis. The main thing that needs to be ruled out is processors that take other processors as input and run them, which (as you can imagine) can create convoluted logic that's nearly impossible to analyze.
So, while the processors probably could be monads, and in some logical sense intrinsically are, it may be more useful to pretend that they aren't; imposing an artificial limitation in order to make static analysis simpler.