I am learning Haskell. I'm sorry for asking a very basic question but I cant seem to find the answer. I have a function f defined by :
f x = g x x
where g is an already defined function of 2 arguments. How do I write this pointfree style?
Edit : without using a lambda expression.
Thanks
f can be written with Control.Monad.join:
f = join g
join on the function monad is one of the primitives used when constructing point-free expressions, as it cannot be defined in a point-free style itself (its SKI calculus equivalent, SII — ap id id in Haskell — doesn't type).
This is known as "W" combinator:
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.Instances
import Control.Applicative
f = join g -- = Wg (also, join = (id =<<))
= (g `ap` id) -- \x -> g x (id x) = SgI
= (<*> id) g -- = CSIg
= g =<< id -- \x -> g (id x) x
= id =<< g -- \x -> id (g x) x
S,K,I are one basic set of combinators; B,C,K,W are another - you've got to stop somewhere (re: your "no lambda expression" comment):
_B = (.) -- _B f g x = f (g x) = S(KS)K
_C = flip -- _C f x y = f y x = S(S(K(S(KS)K))S)(KK)
_K = const -- _K x y = x
_W = join -- _W f x = f x x = CSI = SS(KI) = SS(SK)
_S = ap -- _S f g x = f x (g x) = B(B(BW)C)(BB) = B(BW)(BBC)
= (<*>) -- from Control.Applicative
_I = id -- _I x = x = WK = SKK = SKS = SK(...)
{-
Wgx = gxx
= SgIx = CSIgx
= Sg(KIg)x = SS(KI)gx
= gx(Kx(gx)) = gx(SKgx) = Sg(SKg)x = SS(SK)gx
-- _W (,) 5 = (5,5)
-- _S _I _I x = x x = _omega x -- self-application, untypeable
-}
I got here by pure chance, and I want to offer my solution, as nobody has mentioned lifting yet in this thread, not explicitly at least.
This is a solution:
f = liftM2 g id id
How to look at it?
g has type a -> a -> b, i.e. it takes two values of some type (the same type for both, otherwise the definition the OP gave of f wouldn't make sense), and gives back another value of some type (not necessarily of the same type as the arguments);
lift2M g is the lifted version of g and it has type (Monad m) => m a -> m a -> m b: it takes two monadic values, which are each a value in a so-far-unspecified context, and gives back a monadic value;
when passing two functions to liftM2 g, the die is cast on what the context of the Monad is: it is that the values are not in there yet, but will eventually be, when the function will receive the arguments it needs; in other words, functions are monads that store their own future values; therefore, lift2M g takes in input two functions (or, the future values of two functions), and gives back the another function (or, its future value); knowing this, its type is the same as above if you change m to (->) r, or r ->: (r -> a) -> (r -> a) -> (r -> b)
the two functions that we pass are both id, which promises it'll give back the same value it receives;
liftM2 g id id is therefore a function of type r -> b that passes its argument to those two ids, which let it unchanged and forward it to g.
In a similar fashion, one can exploit that functions are applicative functors, and use this solution:
f = g <$> id <*> id
Related
I am currently reading Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! and am stumbling on the explanation for the evaluation of a certain code block. I've read the explanations several times and am starting to doubt if even the author understands what this piece of code is doing.
ghci> (+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
508
An applicative functor applies a function in some context to a value in some context to get some result in some context. I have spent a few hours studying this code block and have come up with a few explanations for how this expression is evaluated, and none of them are satisfactory. I understand that (5+3)+(5*100) is 508, but the problem is getting to this expression. Does anyone have a clear explanation for this piece of code?
The other two answers have given the detail of how this is calculated - but I thought I might chime in with a more "intuitive" answer to explain how, without going through a detailed calculation, one can "see" that the result must be 508.
As you implied, every Applicative (in fact, even every Functor) can be viewed as a particular kind of "context" which holds values of a given type. As simple examples:
Maybe a is a context in which a value of type a might exist, but might not (usually the result of a computation which may fail for some reason)
[a] is a context which can hold zero or more values of type a, with no upper limit on the number - representing all possible outcomes of a particular computation
IO a is a context in which a value of type a is available as a result of interacting with "the outside world" in some way. (OK that one isn't so simple...)
And, relevant to this example:
r -> a is a context in which a value of type a is available, but its particular value is not yet known, because it depends on some (as yet unknown) value of type r.
The Applicative methods can be very well understood on the basis of values in such contexts. pure embeds an "ordinary value" in a "default context" in which it behaves as closely as possible in that context to a "context-free" one. I won't go through this for each of the 4 examples above (most of them are very obvious), but I will note that for functions, pure = const - that is, a "pure value" a is represented by the function which always produces a no matter what the source value.
Rather than dwell on how <*> can best be described using the "context" metaphor though, I want to dwell on the particular expression:
f <$> a <*> b
where f is a function between 2 "pure values" and a and b are "values in a context". This expression in fact has a synonym as a function: liftA2. Although using the liftA2 function is generally considered less idiomatic than the "applicative style" using <$> and <*>, the name emphasies that the idea is to "lift" a function on "ordinary values" to one on "values in a context". And when thought of like this, I think it is usually very intuitive what this does, given a particular "context" (ie. a particular Applicative instance).
So the expression:
(+) <$> a <*> b
for values a and b of type say f Int for an Applicative f, behaves as follows for different instances f:
if f = Maybe, then the result, if a and b are both Just values, is to add up the underlying values and wrap them in a Just. If either a or b is Nothing, then the whole expression is Nothing.
if f = [] (the list instance) then the above expression is a list containing all sums of the form a' + b' where a' is in a and b' is in b.
if f = IO, then the above expression is an IO action that performs all the I/O effects of a followed by those of b, and results in the sum of the Ints produced by those two actions.
So what, finally, does it do if f is the function instance? Since a and b are both functions describing how to get a given Int given an arbitrary (Int) input, it is natural that lifting the (+) function over them should be the function that, given an input, gets the result of both the a and b functions, and then adds the results.
And that is, of course, what it does - and the explicit route by which it does that has been very ably mapped out by the other answers. But the reason why it works out like that - indeed, the very reason we have the instance that f <*> g = \x -> f x (g x), which might otherwise seem rather arbitrary (although in actual fact it's one of the very few things, if not the only thing, that will type-check), is so that the instance matches the semantics of "values which depend on some as-yet-unknown other value, according to the given function". And in general, I would say it's often better to think "at a high level" like this than to be forced to go down to the low-level details of exactly how computations are performed. (Although I certainly don't want to downplay the importance of also being able to do the latter.)
[Actually, from a philosophical point of view, it might be more accurate to say that the definition is as it is just because it's the "natural" definition that type-checks, and that it's just happy coincidence that the instance then takes on such a nice "meaning". Mathematics is of course full of just such happy "coincidences" which turn out to have very deep reasons behind them.]
It is using the applicative instance for functions. Your code
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
is evaluated as
( (\a->\b->a+b) <$> (\c->c+3) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- f <$> g
( (\x -> (\a->\b->a+b) ((\c->c+3) x)) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- \x -> f (g x)
( (\x -> (\a->\b->a+b) (x+3)) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5
( (\x -> \b -> (x+3)+b) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5
( (\x->\b->(x+3)+b) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- f <*> g
(\y -> ((\x->\b->(x+3)+b) y) ((\d->d*100) y)) 5 -- \y -> (f y) (g y)
(\y -> (\b->(y+3)+b) (y*100)) 5
(\y -> (y+3)+(y*100)) 5
(5+3)+(5*100)
where <$> is fmap or just function composition ., and <*> is ap if you know how it behaves on monads.
Let us first take a look how fmap and (<*>) are defined for a function:
instance Functor ((->) r) where
fmap = (.)
instance Applicative ((->) a) where
pure = const
(<*>) f g x = f x (g x)
liftA2 q f g x = q (f x) (g x)
The expression we aim to evaluate is:
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
or more verbose:
((+) <$> (+3)) <*> (*100) $ 5
If we thus evaluate (<$>), which is an infix synonym for fmap, we thus see that this is equal to:
(+) . (+3)
so that means our expression is equivalent to:
((+) . (+3)) <*> (*100) $ 5
Next we can apply the sequential application. Here f is thus equal to (+) . (+3) and g is (*100). This thus means that we construct a function that looks like:
\x -> ((+) . (+3)) x ((*100) x)
We can now simplify this and rewrite this into:
\x -> ((+) (x+3)) ((*100) x)
and then rewrite it to:
\x -> (+) (x+3) ((*100) x)
We thus have constructed a function that looks like:
\x -> (x+3) + 100 * x
or simpler:
\x -> 101 * x + 3
If we then calculate:
(\x -> 101*x + 3) 5
then we of course obtain:
101 * 5 + 3
and thus:
505 + 3
which is the expected:
508
For any applicative,
a <$> b <*> c = liftA2 a b c
For functions,
liftA2 a b c x
= a (b x) (c x) -- by definition;
= (a . b) x (c x)
= ((a <$> b) <*> c) x
Thus
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
=
liftA2 (+) (+3) (*100) 5
=
(+) ((+3) 5) ((*100) 5)
=
(5+3) + (5*100)
(the long version of this answer follows.)
Pure math has no time. Pure Haskell has no time. Speaking in verbs ("applicative functor applies" etc.) can be confusing ("applies... when?...").
Instead, (<*>) is a combinator which combines a "computation" (denoted by an applicative functor) carrying a function (in the context of that type of computations) and a "computation" of the same type, carrying a value (in like context), into one combined "computation" that carries out the application of that function to that value (in such context).
"Computation" is used to contrast it with a pure Haskell "calculations" (after Philip Wadler's "Calculating is better than Scheming" paper, itself referring to David Turner's Kent Recursive Calculator language, one of predecessors of Miranda, the (main) predecessor of Haskell).
"Computations" might or might not be pure themselves, that's an orthogonal issue. But mainly what it means, is that "computations" embody a generalized function call protocol. They might "do" something in addition to / as part of / carrying out the application of a function to its argument. Or in types,
( $ ) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
(<$>) :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(=<<) :: (a -> f b) -> f a -> f b
With functions, the context is application (another one), and to recover the value -- be it a function or an argument -- the application to a common argument is to be performed.
(bear with me, we're almost there).
The pattern a <$> b <*> c is also expressible as liftA2 a b c. And so, the "functions" applicative functor "computation" type is defined by
liftA2 h x y s = let x' = x s -- embellished application of h to x and y
y' = y s in -- in context of functions, or Reader
h x' y'
-- liftA2 h x y = let x' = x -- non-embellished application, or Identity
-- y' = y in
-- h x' y'
-- liftA2 h x y s = let (x',s') = x s -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- (y',s'') = y s' in -- in context of
-- (h x' y', s'') -- state-passing computations, or State
-- liftA2 h x y = let (x',w) = x -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- (y',w') = y in -- in context of
-- (h x' y', w++w') -- logging computations, or Writer
-- liftA2 h x y = [h x' y' | -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- x' <- x, -- in context of
-- y' <- y ] -- nondeterministic computations, or List
-- ( and for Monads we define `liftBind h x k =` and replace `y` with `k x'`
-- in the bodies of the above combinators; then liftA2 becomes liftBind: )
-- liftA2 :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c
-- liftBind :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> (a -> f b) -> f c
-- (>>=) = liftBind (\a b -> b) :: f a -> (a -> f b) -> f b
And in fact all the above snippets can be just written with ApplicativeDo as liftA2 h x y = do { x' <- x ; y' <- y ; pure (h x' y') } or even more intuitively as
liftA2 h x y = [h x' y' | x' <- x, y' <- y], with Monad Comprehensions, since all the above computation types are monads as well as applicative functors. This shows by the way that (<*>) = liftA2 ($), which one might find illuminating as well.
Indeed,
> :t let liftA2 h x y r = h (x r) (y r) in liftA2
:: (a -> b -> c) -> (t -> a) -> (t -> b) -> (t -> c)
> :t liftA2 -- the built-in one
liftA2 :: Applicative f => (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c
i.e. the types match when we take f a ~ (t -> a) ~ (->) t a, i.e. f ~ (->) t.
And so, we're already there:
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
=
liftA2 (+) (+3) (*100) 5
=
(+) ((+3) 5) ((*100) 5)
=
(+) (5+3) (5*100)
=
(5+3) + (5*100)
It's just how liftA2 is defined for this type, Applicative ((->) t) => ...:
instance Applicative ((->) t) where
pure x t = x
liftA2 h x y t = h (x t) (y t)
There's no need to define (<*>). The source code says:
Minimal complete definition
pure, ((<*>) | liftA2)
So now you've been wanting to ask for a long time, why is it that a <$> b <*> c is equivalent to liftA2 a b c?
The short answer is, it just is. One can be defined in terms of the other -- i.e. (<*>) can be defined via liftA2,
g <*> x = liftA2 id g x -- i.e. (<*>) = liftA2 id = liftA2 ($)
-- (g <*> x) t = liftA2 id g x t
-- = id (g t) (x t)
-- = (id . g) t (x t) -- = (id <$> g <*> x) t
-- = g t (x t)
(which is exactly as it is defined in the source),
and it is a law that every Applicative Functor must follow, that h <$> g = pure h <*> g.
Lastly,
liftA2 h g x == pure h <*> g <*> x
-- h g x == (h g) x
because <*> associates to the left: it is infixl 4 <*>.
This could be a way of constructing
Is there a (ideally standard) way of accomplishing
f :: Int -> Int
f x = 2*x
g :: Int -> String
g x = show x
h = (f, g)
fmap h 5 -- results in: (10, "5")
In general, for functions going from A->T_i for some variable types T_i and a fixed type A, I think this would just be a simplification of a BiFunctor, at lease for a 2-tuple of 1-argument functions - it would be great to see a generalization going beyond 2-tuples.
You could use uncurry (&&&), as follows:
> import Control.Arrow
> f :: Int->Int ; f x = 2*x
> g :: Int->String ; g x = show x
> h = (f, g)
> uncurry (&&&) h 5
(10,"5")
I have a type
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
I need to verify if the following type constructor Maybe is a Monad
instance Monad Maybe where
return x = Just x
Nothing >>= f = Just (f (Nothing))
(Just x) >>= f = f x
Please give me some pointers how to do above task.
Thanks
For that, you have to verify the monad laws. These come in several (equivalent) forms, the closest to Haskell monads being
x >>= return = x
return x >>= f = f x
(x >>= f) >>= g = x >>= (\y -> f y >>= g)
Start from the first and apply the definitions for >>= and return. You may wish to proceed by cases: either x is Nothing or it is Just a for some value a...
I would like to define a function that operates on an expression of a certain type, but has access to its internal structure, if it has one. For instance, f in what follows:
g :: a -> a -> a
g x y = y
f :: a -> a
f x'#(g x y) = x'
f _ = 1
(g x y) is of type a, so f should be able to take it as an argument, but the definition for f above can't be parsed by Haskell. I would like to define something like f to take advantage of call-by-name evaluation. Is there any way to do this in Haskell?
First, pattern matching is allowed only on patterns, i.e. expressions built from application, constructors, and variables (used at most once).
Second, even if it were extended, your example is problematic because your g is not injective:
case g x y of g a b -> a
should be equal to, since g x y = y
case y of g a b -> a
but then a could be anything.
If instead it happens that g is defined by an expression which could be a pattern, then GHC can allow using it as a pattern if you ask for it through the PatternSynonyms GHC extension.
pattern G a b = ("hello", b, a)
foo = case someTriple of
G a b -> use a b
(s, x, y) -> ...
bar = G 4 5 -- we can also use G as a function
Mind the pure function below, in an imperative language:
def foo(x,y):
x = f(x) if a(x)
if c(x):
x = g(x)
else:
x = h(x)
x = f(x)
y = f(y) if a(y)
x = g(x) if b(y)
return [x,y]
That function represents a style where you have to incrementally update variables. It can be avoided in most cases, but there are situations where that pattern is unavoidable - for example, writing a cooking procedure for a robot, which inherently requires a series of steps and decisions. Now, imagine we were trying to represent foo in Haskell.
foo x0 y0 =
let x1 = if a x0 then f x0 else x0 in
let x2 = if c x1 then g x1 else h x1 in
let x3 = f x2 in
let y1 = if a y0 then f y0 else y0 in
let x4 = if b y1 then g x3 else x3 in
[x4,y1]
That code works, but it is too complicated and error prone due to the need for manually managing the numeric tags. Notice that, after x1 is set, x0's value should never be used again, but it still can. If you accidentally use it, that will be an undetected error.
I've managed to solve this problem using the State monad:
fooSt x y = execState (do
(x,y) <- get
when (a x) (put (f x, y))
(x,y) <- get
if c x
then put (g x, y)
else put (h x, y)
(x,y) <- get
put (f x, y)
(x,y) <- get
when (a y) (put (x, f y))
(x,y) <- get
when (b y) (put (g x, x))) (x,y)
This way, need for tag-tracking goes away, as well as the risk of accidentally using an outdated variable. But now the code is verbose and much harder to understand, mainly due to the repetition of (x,y) <- get.
So: what is a more readable, elegant and safe way to express this pattern?
Full code for testing.
Your goals
While the direct transformation of imperative code would usually lead to the ST monad and STRef, lets think about what you actually want to do:
You want to manipulate values conditionally.
You want to return that value.
You want to sequence the steps of your manipulation.
Requirements
Now this indeed looks first like the ST monad. However, if we follow the simple monad laws, together with do notation, we see that
do
x <- return $ if somePredicate x then g x
else h x
x <- return $ if someOtherPredicate x then a x
else b x
is exactly what you want. Since you need only the most basic functions of a monad (return and >>=), you can use the simplest:
The Identity monad
foo x y = runIdentity $ do
x <- return $ if a x then f x
else x
x <- return $ if c x then g x
else h x
x <- return $ f x
y <- return $ if a x then f y
else y
x <- return $ if b y then g x
else y
return (x,y)
Note that you cannot use let x = if a x then f x else x, because in this case the x would be the same on both sides, whereas
x <- return $ if a x then f x
else x
is the same as
(return $ if a x then (f x) else x) >>= \x -> ...
and the x in the if expression is clearly not the same as the resulting one, which is going to be used in the lambda on the right hand side.
Helpers
In order to make this more clear, you can add helpers like
condM :: Monad m => Bool -> a -> a -> m a
condM p a b = return $ if p then a else b
to get an even more concise version:
foo x y = runIdentity $ do
x <- condM (a x) (f x) x
x <- fmap f $ condM (c x) (g x) (h x)
y <- condM (a y) (f y) y
x <- condM (b y) (g x) x
return (x , y)
Ternary craziness
And while we're up to it, lets crank up the craziness and introduce a ternary operator:
(?) :: Bool -> (a, a) -> a
b ? ie = if b then fst ie else snd ie
(??) :: Monad m => Bool -> (a, a) -> m a
(??) p = return . (?) p
(#) :: a -> a -> (a, a)
(#) = (,)
infixr 2 ??
infixr 2 #
infixr 2 ?
foo x y = runIdentity $ do
x <- a x ?? f x # x
x <- fmap f $ c x ?? g x # h x
y <- a y ?? f y # y
x <- b y ?? g x # x
return (x , y)
But the bottomline is, that the Identity monad has everything you need for this task.
Imperative or non-imperative
One might argue whether this style is imperative. It's definitely a sequence of actions. But there's no state, unless you count the bound variables. However, then a pack of let … in … declarations also gives an implicit sequence: you expect the first let to bind first.
Using Identity is purely functional
Either way, the code above doesn't introduce mutability. x doesn't get modified, instead you have a new x or y shadowing the last one. This gets clear if you desugar the do expression as noted above:
foo x y = runIdentity $
a x ?? f x # x >>= \x ->
c x ?? g x # h x >>= \x ->
return (f x) >>= \x ->
a y ?? f y # y >>= \y ->
b y ?? g x # x >>= \x ->
return (x , y)
Getting rid of the simplest monad
However, if we would use (?) on the left hand side and remove the returns, we could replace (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b) by something with type a -> (a -> b) -> b. This just happens to be flip ($). We end up with:
($>) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b
($>) = flip ($)
infixr 0 $> -- same infix as ($)
foo x y = a x ? f x # x $> \x ->
c x ? g x # h x $> \x ->
f x $> \x ->
a y ? f y # y $> \y ->
b y ? g x # x $> \x ->
(x, y)
This is very similar to the desugared do expression above. Note that any usage of Identity can be transformed into this style, and vice-versa.
The problem you state looks like a nice application for arrows:
import Control.Arrow
if' :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
if' p f g x = if p x then f x else g x
foo2 :: (Int,Int) -> (Int,Int)
foo2 = first (if' c g h . if' a f id) >>>
first f >>>
second (if' a f id) >>>
(\(x,y) -> (if b y then g x else x , y))
in particular, first lifts a function a -> b to (a,c) -> (b,c), which is more idiomatic.
Edit: if' allows a lift
import Control.Applicative (liftA3)
-- a functional if for lifting
if'' b x y = if b then x else y
if' :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
if' = liftA3 if''
I'd probably do something like this:
foo x y = ( x', y' )
where x' = bgf y' . cgh . af $ x
y' = af y
af z = (if a z then f else id) z
cgh z = (if c z then g else h) z
bg y x = (if b y then g else id) x
For something more complicated, you may want to consider using lens:
whenM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m () -> m ()
whenM c a = c >>= \res -> when res a
ifM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
ifM mb ml mr = mb >>= \b -> if b then ml else mr
foo :: Int -> Int -> (Int, Int)
foo = curry . execState $ do
whenM (uses _1 a) $
_1 %= f
ifM (uses _1 c)
(_1 %= g)
(_1 %= h)
_1 %= f
whenM (uses _2 a) $
_2 %= f
whenM (uses _2 b) $ do
_1 %= g
And there's nothing stopping you from using more descriptive variable names:
foo :: Int -> Int -> (Int, Int)
foo = curry . execState $ do
let x :: Lens (a, c) (b, c) a b
x = _1
y :: Lens (c, a) (c, b) a b
y = _2
whenM (uses x a) $
x %= f
ifM (uses x c)
(x %= g)
(x %= h)
x %= f
whenM (uses y a) $
y %= f
whenM (uses y b) $ do
x %= g
This is a job for the ST (state transformer) library.
ST provides:
Stateful computations in the form of the ST type. These look like ST s a for a computation that results in a value of type a, and may be run with runST to obtain a pure a value.
First-class mutable references in the form of the STRef type. The newSTRef a action creates a new STRef s a reference with an initial value of a, and which can be read with readSTRef ref and written with writeSTRef ref a. A single ST computation can use any number of STRef references internally.
Together, these let you express the same mutable variable functionality as in your imperative example.
To use ST and STRef, we need to import:
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction #-}
import Control.Monad.ST.Safe
import Data.STRef
Instead of using the low-level readSTRef and writeSTRef all over the place, we can define the following helpers to match the imperative operations that the Python-style foo example uses:
-- STRef assignment.
(=:) :: STRef s a -> ST s a -> ST s ()
ref =: x = writeSTRef ref =<< x
-- STRef function application.
($:) :: (a -> b) -> STRef s a -> ST s b
f $: ref = f `fmap` readSTRef ref
-- Postfix guard syntax.
if_ :: Monad m => m () -> m Bool -> m ()
action `if_` guard = act' =<< guard
where act' b = if b then action
else return ()
This lets us write:
ref =: x to assign the value of ST computation x to the STRef ref.
(f $: ref) to apply a pure function f to the STRef ref.
action `if_` guard to execute action only if guard results in True.
With these helpers in place, we can faithfully translate the original imperative definition of foo into Haskell:
a = (< 10)
b = even
c = odd
f x = x + 3
g x = x * 2
h x = x - 1
f3 x = x + 2
-- A stateful computation that takes two integer STRefs and result in a final [x,y].
fooST :: Integral n => STRef s n -> STRef s n -> ST s [n]
fooST x y = do
x =: (f $: x) `if_` (a $: x)
x' <- readSTRef x
if c x' then
x =: (g $: x)
else
x =: (h $: x)
x =: (f $: x)
y =: (f $: y) `if_` (a $: y)
x =: (g $: x) `if_` (b $: y)
sequence [readSTRef x, readSTRef y]
-- Pure wrapper: simply call fooST with two fresh references, and run it.
foo :: Integral n => n -> n -> [n]
foo x y = runST $ do
x' <- newSTRef x
y' <- newSTRef y
fooST x' y'
-- This will print "[9,3]".
main = print (foo 0 0)
Points to note:
Although we first had to define some syntactical helpers (=:, $:, if_) before translating foo, this demonstrates how you can use ST and STRef as a foundation to grow your own little imperative language that's directly suited to the problem at hand.
Syntax aside, this matches the structure of the original imperative definition exactly, without any error-prone restructuring. Any minor changes to the original example can be mirrored directly to Haskell. (The addition of the temporary x' <- readSTRef x binding in the Haskell code is only in order to use it with the native if/else syntax: if desired, this can be replaced with an appropriate ST-based if/else construct.)
The above code demonstrates giving both pure and stateful interfaces to the same computation: pure callers can use foo without knowing that it uses mutable state internally, while ST callers can directly use fooST (and for example provide it with existing STRefs to modify).
#Sibi said it best in his comment:
I would suggest you to stop thinking imperatively and rather think in a functional way. I agree that it will take some time to getting used to the new pattern, but try to translate imperative ideas to functional languages isn't a great approach.
Practically speaking, your chain of let can be a good starting point:
foo x0 y0 =
let x1 = if a x0 then f x0 else x0 in
let x2 = if c x1 then g x1 else h x1 in
let x3 = f x2 in
let y1 = if a y0 then f y0 else y0 in
let x4 = if b y1 then g x3 else x3 in
[x4,y1]
But I would suggest using a single let and giving descriptive names to the intermediate stages.
In this example unfortunately I don't have a clue what the various x's and y's do, so I cannot suggest meaningful names. In real code you would use names such as x_normalized, x_translated, or such, instead of x1 and x2, to describe what those values really are.
In fact, in a let or where you don't really have variables: they're just shorthand names you give to intermediate results, to make it easy to compose the final expression (the one after in or before the where.)
This is the spirit behind the x_bar and x_baz below. Try to come up with names that are reasonably descriptive, given the context of your code.
foo x y =
let x_bar = if a x then f x else x
x_baz = f if c x_bar then g x_bar else h x_bar
y_bar = if a y then f y else y
x_there = if b y_bar then g x_baz else x_baz
in [x_there, y_bar]
Then you can start recognizing patterns that were hidden in the imperative code. For example, x_bar and y_bar are basically the same transformation, applied respectively to x and y: that's why they have the same suffix "_bar" in this nonsensical example; then your x2 probably doesn't need an intermediate name , since you can just apply f to the result of the entire "if c then g else h".
Going on with the pattern recognition, you should factor out the transformations that you are applying to variables into sub-lambdas (or whatever you call the auxiliary functions defined in a where clause.)
Again, I don't have a clue what the original code did, so I cannot suggest meaningful names for the auxiliary functions. In a real application, f_if_a would be called normalize_if_needed or thaw_if_frozen or mow_if_overgrown... you get the idea:
foo x y =
let x_bar = f_if_a x
y_bar = f_if_a y
x_baz = f (g_if_c_else_h x_bar)
x_there = g_if_b x_baz y_bar
in [x_there, y_bar]
where
f_if_a x
| a x = f x
| otherwise = x
g_if_c_else_h x
| c x = g x
| otherwise = h x
g_if_b x y
| b y = g x
| otherwise = x
Don't disregard this naming business.
The whole point of Haskell and other pure functional languages is to express algorithms without the assignment operator, meaning the tool that can modify the value of an existing variable.
The names you give to things inside a function definition, whether introduced as arguments, let, or where, can only refer to one value (or auxiliary function) throughout the entire definition, so that your code can be more easily reasoned about and proven correct.
If you don't give them meaningful names (and conversely giving your code a meaningful structure) then you're missing out on the entire purpose of Haskell.
(IMHO the other answers so far, citing monads and other shenanigans, are barking up the wrong tree.)
I always prefer layering state transformers to using a single state over a tuple: it definitely declutters things by letting you "focus" on a specific layer (representations of the x and y variables in our case):
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
import Control.Monad.Trans.State
foo :: x -> y -> (x, y)
foo x y =
(flip runState) y $ (flip execStateT) x $ do
get >>= \v -> when (a v) (put (f v))
get >>= \v -> put ((if c v then g else h) v)
modify f
lift $ get >>= \v -> when (a v) (put (f v))
lift get >>= \v -> when (b v) (modify g)
The lift function allows us to focus on the inner state layer, which is y.