[[!toc]]
+We're going to come at continuations from three different directions, and each
+time we're going to end up at the same place: a particular monad, which we'll
+call the continuation monad.
Rethinking the list monad
-------------------------
To construct a monad, the key element is to settle on a type
-constructor, and the monad naturally follows from that. We'll remind
-you of some examples of how monads follow from the type constructor in
-a moment. This will involve some review of familair material, but
-it's worth doing for two reasons: it will set up a pattern for the new
-discussion further below, and it will tie together some previously
-unconnected elements of the course (more specifically, version 3 lists
-and monads).
+constructor, and the monad more or less naturally follows from that.
+We'll remind you of some examples of how monads follow from the type
+constructor in a moment. This will involve some review of familair
+material, but it's worth doing for two reasons: it will set up a
+pattern for the new discussion further below, and it will tie together
+some previously unconnected elements of the course (more specifically,
+version 3 lists and monads).
For instance, take the **Reader Monad**. Once we decide that the type
constructor is
let r_unit (a : 'a) : 'a reader = fun (e : env) -> a
-Since the type of an `'a reader` is `env -> 'a` (by definition),
-the type of the `r_unit` function is `'a -> env -> 'a`, which is a
-specific case of the type of the *K* combinator. So it makes sense
-that *K* is the unit for the reader monad.
+The reason this is a fairly natural choice is that because the type of
+an `'a reader` is `env -> 'a` (by definition), the type of the
+`r_unit` function is `'a -> env -> 'a`, which is an instance of the
+type of the *K* combinator. So it makes sense that *K* is the unit
+for the reader monad.
Since the type of the `bind` operator is required to be
r_bind : ('a reader) -> ('a -> 'b reader) -> ('b reader)
-We can reason our way to the correct `bind` function as follows. We
-start by declaring the types determined by the definition of a bind operation:
+We can reason our way to the traditional reader `bind` function as
+follows. We start by declaring the types determined by the definition
+of a bind operation:
let r_bind (u : 'a reader) (f : 'a -> 'b reader) : ('b reader) = ...
objects of type `'a`, the way we open a box in this monad is
by applying it to an environment:
+<pre>
... f (u e) ...
+</pre>
This subexpression types to `'b reader`, which is good. The only
-problem is that we invented an environment `e` that we didn't already have ,
-so we have to abstract over that variable to balance the books:
+problem is that we made use of an environment `e` that we didn't already have,
+so we must abstract over that variable to balance the books:
fun e -> f (u e) ...
+[To preview the discussion of the Curry-Howard correspondence, what
+we're doing here is constructing an intuitionistic proof of the type,
+and using the Curry-Howard labeling of the proof as our bind term.]
+
This types to `env -> 'b reader`, but we want to end up with `env ->
'b`. Once again, the easiest way to turn a `'b reader` into a `'b` is to apply it to an environment. So we end up as follows:
- r_bind (u : 'a reader) (f : 'a -> 'b reader) : ('b reader) =
- f (u e) e
+<pre>
+r_bind (u : 'a reader) (f : 'a -> 'b reader) : ('b reader) = f (u e) e
+</pre>
And we're done. This gives us a bind function of the right type. We can then check whether, in combination with the unit function we chose, it satisfies the monad laws, and behaves in the way we intend. And it does.
words, `fun x -> [x]` is a reasonable choice for a unit.
As for bind, an `'a list` monadic object contains a lot of objects of
-type `'a`, and we want to make some use of each of them (rather than
+type `'a`, and we want to make use of each of them (rather than
arbitrarily throwing some of them away). The only
thing we know for sure we can do with an object of type `'a` is apply
the function of type `'a -> 'a list` to them. Once we've done so, we
Yet we can still desire to go deeper, and see if the appropriate bind
behavior emerges from the types, as it did for the previously
-considered monads. But we can't do that if we leave the list type
-as a primitive Ocaml type. However, we know several ways of implementing
+considered monads. But we can't do that if we leave the list type as
+a primitive Ocaml type. However, we know several ways of implementing
lists using just functions. In what follows, we're going to use type
-3 lists (the right fold implementation), though it's important to
-wonder how things would change if we used some other strategy for
-implementating lists. These were the lists that made lists look like
-Church numerals with extra bits embdded in them:
+3 lists, the right fold implementation (though it's important and
+intriguing to wonder how things would change if we used some other
+strategy for implementating lists). These were the lists that made
+lists look like Church numerals with extra bits embdded in them:
empty list: fun f z -> z
list with one element: fun f z -> f 1 z
fun (k : 'c -> 'b -> 'b) -> u (fun (a : 'a) (b : 'b) -> f a k b)
-This whole expression has type `('c -> 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'b`, which is exactly the type of a `('c, 'b) list'`. So we can hypothesize that we our bind is:
+This whole expression has type `('c -> 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'b`, which is exactly the type of a `('c, 'b) list'`. So we can hypothesize that our bind is:
l'_bind (u : ('a -> 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'b)
(f : 'a -> ('c -> 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'b)
c_bind (u : ('a -> 'b) -> 'b) (f : 'a -> ('c -> 'd) -> 'd) : ('c -> 'd) -> 'd =
fun (k : 'a -> 'b) -> u (fun (a : 'a) -> f a k)
-Note that `c_bind` is exactly the `gqize` function that Montague used
+Note that `c_unit` is exactly the `gqize` function that Montague used
to lift individuals into the continuation monad.
That last bit in `c_bind` looks familiar---we just saw something like