[[!toc]]
-Types, OCAML
+Types, OCaml
------------
-OCAML has type inference: the system can often infer what the type of
+OCaml has type inference: the system can often infer what the type of
an expression must be, based on the type of other known expressions.
For instance, if we type
# (3) = 3;;
- : bool = true
-though OCAML, like many systems, refuses to try to prove whether two
+though OCaml, like many systems, refuses to try to prove whether two
functional objects may be identical:
# (f) = f;;
Oh well.
-Booleans in OCAML, and simple pattern matching
+Booleans in OCaml, and simple pattern matching
----------------------------------------------
Where we would write `true 1 2` in our pure lambda calculus and expect
-it to evaluate to `1`, in OCAML boolean types are not functions
+it to evaluate to `1`, in OCaml boolean types are not functions
(equivalently, are functions that take zero arguments). Selection is
accomplished as follows:
Unit and thunks
---------------
-All functions in OCAML take exactly one argument. Even this one:
+All functions in OCaml take exactly one argument. Even this one:
# let f x y = x + y;;
# f 2 3;;
After we've given our `f` one argument, it returns a function that is
still waiting for another argument.
-There is a special type in OCAML called `unit`. There is exactly one
+There is a special type in OCaml called `unit`. There is exactly one
object in this type, written `()`. So
# ();;
# (fun x -> true) omega;;
- : bool = true
-OCAML declined to try to evaluate the argument before applying the
+OCaml declined to try to evaluate the argument before applying the
functor. But remember that `omega` is a function too, so we can
reverse the order of the arguments:
execution. In Scheme parlance, functions on the unit type are called
*thunks* (which I've always assumed was a blend of "think" and "chunk").
+Towards Monads
+--------------
+
+So the integer division operation presupposes that its second argument
+(the divisor) is not zero, upon pain of presupposition failure.
+Here's what my OCaml interpreter says:
+
+ # 12/0;;
+ Exception: Division_by_zero.
+
+So we want to explicitly allow for the possibility that
+division will return something other than a number.
+We'll use OCaml's option type, which works like this:
+
+ # type 'a option = None | Some of 'a;;
+ # None;;
+ - : 'a option = None
+ # Some 3;;
+ - : int option = Some 3
+
+So if a division is normal, we return some number, but if the divisor is
+zero, we return None:
+
+<pre>
+let div (x:int) (y:int) =
+ match y with 0 -> None |
+ _ -> Some (x / y);;
+
+(*
+val div : int -> int -> int option = fun
+# div 12 3;;
+- : int option = Some 4
+# div 12 0;;
+- : int option = None
+# div (div 12 3) 2;;
+Characters 4-14:
+ div (div 12 3) 2;;
+ ^^^^^^^^^^
+Error: This expression has type int option
+ but an expression was expected of type int
+*)
+</pre>
+
+This starts off well: dividing 12 by 3, no problem; dividing 12 by 0,
+just the behavior we were hoping for. But we want to be able to use
+the output of the safe-division function as input for further division
+operations. So we have to jack up the types of the inputs:
+
+<pre>
+let div (x:int option) (y:int option) =
+ match y with None -> None |
+ Some 0 -> None |
+ Some n -> (match x with None -> None |
+ Some m -> Some (m / n));;
+
+(*
+val div : int option -> int option -> int option = <fun>
+# div (Some 12) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = Some 3
+# div (Some 12) (Some 0);;
+- : int option = None
+# div (div (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = None
+*)
+</pre>
+
+Beautiful, just what we need: now we can try to divide by anything we
+want, without fear that we're going to trigger any system errors.
+
+I prefer to line up the `match` alternatives by using OCaml's
+built-in tuple type:
+
+<pre>
+let div (x:int option) (y:int option) =
+ match (x, y) with (None, _) -> None |
+ (_, None) -> None |
+ (_, Some 0) -> None |
+ (Some m, Some n) -> Some (m / n);;
+</pre>
+
+So far so good. But what if we want to combine division with
+other arithmetic operations? We need to make those other operations
+aware of the possibility that one of their arguments will trigger a
+presupposition failure:
+
+<pre>
+let add (x:int option) (y:int option) =
+ match (x, y) with (None, _) -> None |
+ (_, None) -> None |
+ (Some m, Some n) -> Some (m + n);;
+
+(*
+val add : int option -> int option -> int option = <fun>
+# add (Some 12) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = Some 16
+# add (div (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = None
+*)
+</pre>
+
+This works, but is somewhat disappointing: the `add` operation
+doesn't trigger any presupposition of its own, so it is a shame that
+it needs to be adjusted because someone else might make trouble.
+
+But we can automate the adjustment. The standard way in OCaml,
+Haskell, etc., is to define a `bind` operator (the name `bind` is not
+well chosen to resonate with linguists, but what can you do):
+
+<pre>
+let bind (x: int option) (f: int -> (int option)) =
+ match x with None -> None |
+ Some n -> f n;;
+
+let add (x: int option) (y: int option) =
+ bind x (fun x -> bind y (fun y -> Some (x + y)));;
+
+let div (x: int option) (y: int option) =
+ bind x (fun x -> bind y (fun y -> if (0 = y) then None else Some (x / y)));;
+
+(*
+# div (div (Some 12) (Some 2)) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = Some 1
+# div (div (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = None
+# add (div (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 4);;
+- : int option = None
+*)
+</pre>
+
+Compare the new definitions of `add` and `div` closely: the definition
+for `add` shows what it looks like to equip an ordinary operation to
+survive in dangerous presupposition-filled world. Note that the new
+definition of `add` does not need to test whether its arguments are
+None objects or real numbers---those details are hidden inside of the
+`bind` function.
+
+The definition of `div` shows exactly what extra needs to be said in
+order to trigger the no-division-by-zero presupposition.
+
+For linguists: this is a complete theory of a particularly simply form
+of presupposition projection (every predicate is a hole).