[[!toc]]
-Monads
-------
-
-Start by (re)reading the discussion of monads in the lecture notes for
-week 6 [[Towards Monads]].
-In those notes, we saw a way to separate thinking about error
-conditions (such as trying to divide by zero) from thinking about
-normal arithmetic computations. We did this by making use of the
-`option` type: in each place where we had something of type `int`, we
-put instead something of type `int option`, which is a sum type
-consisting either of one choice with an `int` payload, or else a `None`
-choice which we interpret as signaling that something has gone wrong.
-
-The goal was to make normal computing as convenient as possible: when
-we're adding or multiplying, we don't have to worry about generating
-any new errors, so we do want to think about the difference between
-`int`s and `int option`s. We tried to accomplish this by defining a
-`bind` operator, which enabled us to peel away the `option` husk to get
-at the delicious integer inside. There was also a homework problem
-which made this even more convenient by mapping any binary operation
-on plain integers into a lifted operation that understands how to deal
-with `int option`s in a sensible way.
+Towards Monads: Safe division
+-----------------------------
+
+[This section used to be near the end of the lecture notes for week 6]
+
+We begin by reasoning about what should happen when someone tries to
+divide by zero. This will lead us to a general programming technique
+called a *monad*, which we'll see in many guises in the weeks to come.
+
+Integer division 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`. As a mnemonic aid, we'll append a `'` to the end of our new divide function.
+
+<pre>
+let div' (x:int) (y:int) =
+ match y with
+ 0 -> None
+ | _ -> Some (x / y);;
+
+(*
+val div' : int -> int -> int option = fun
+# div' 12 2;;
+- : int option = Some 6
+# div' 12 0;;
+- : int option = None
+# div' (div' 12 2) 3;;
+Characters 4-14:
+ div' (div' 12 2) 3;;
+ ^^^^^^^^^^
+Error: This expression has type int option
+ but an expression was expected of type int
+*)
+</pre>
+
+This starts off well: dividing 12 by 2, 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' (u:int option) (v:int option) =
+ match u with
+ None -> None
+ | Some x -> (match v with
+ Some 0 -> None
+ | Some y -> Some (x / y));;
+
+(*
+val div' : int option -> int option -> int option = <fun>
+# div' (Some 12) (Some 2);;
+- : int option = Some 6
+# div' (Some 12) (Some 0);;
+- : int option = None
+# div' (div' (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 3);;
+- : 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' (u:int option) (v:int option) =
+ match (u, v) with
+ (None, _) -> None
+ | (_, None) -> None
+ | (_, Some 0) -> None
+ | (Some x, Some y) -> Some (x / y);;
+</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 has triggered a
+presupposition failure:
+
+<pre>
+let add' (u:int option) (v:int option) =
+ match (u, v) with
+ (None, _) -> None
+ | (_, None) -> None
+ | (Some x, Some y) -> Some (x + y);;
+
+(*
+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). To continue our mnemonic association, we'll put a `'` after the name "bind" as well.
+
+<pre>
+let bind' (u: int option) (f: int -> (int option)) =
+ match u with
+ None -> None
+ | Some x -> f x;;
+
+let add' (u: int option) (v: int option) =
+ bind' u (fun x -> bind' v (fun y -> Some (x + y)));;
+
+let div' (u: int option) (v: int option) =
+ bind' u (fun x -> bind' v (fun y -> if (0 = y) then None else Some (x / y)));;
+
+(*
+# div' (div' (Some 12) (Some 2)) (Some 3);;
+- : int option = Some 2
+# div' (div' (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 3);;
+- : int option = None
+# add' (div' (Some 12) (Some 0)) (Some 3);;
+- : 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.
[Linguitics note: Dividing by zero is supposed to feel like a kind of
presupposition failure. If we wanted to adapt this approach to
not surprisingly, these refinements will require some more
sophisticated techniques than the super-simple option monad.]
+
+Monads in General
+-----------------
+
+We've just seen a way to separate thinking about error conditions
+(such as trying to divide by zero) from thinking about normal
+arithmetic computations. We did this by making use of the `option`
+type: in each place where we had something of type `int`, we put
+instead something of type `int option`, which is a sum type consisting
+either of one choice with an `int` payload, or else a `None` choice
+which we interpret as signaling that something has gone wrong.
+
+The goal was to make normal computing as convenient as possible: when
+we're adding or multiplying, we don't have to worry about generating
+any new errors, so we would rather not think about the difference
+between `int`s and `int option`s. We tried to accomplish this by
+defining a `bind` operator, which enabled us to peel away the `option`
+husk to get at the delicious integer inside. There was also a
+homework problem which made this even more convenient by defining a
+`lift` operator that mapped any binary operation on plain integers
+into a lifted operation that understands how to deal with `int
+option`s in a sensible way.
+
So what exactly is a monad? We can consider a monad to be a system
that provides at least the following three elements:
discussing earlier (whose value is written `()`). It's also only
very loosely connected to the "return" keyword in many other
programming languages like C. But these are the names that the literature
- uses.
+ uses. [The rationale for "unit" comes from the monad laws
+ (see below), where the unit function serves as an identity,
+ just like the unit number (i.e., 1) serves as the identity
+ object for multiplication. The rationale for "return" comes
+ from a misguided desire to resonate with C programmers and
+ other imperative types.]
The unit/return operation is a way of lifting an ordinary object into
the monadic box you've defined, in the simplest way possible. You can think
most straightforward way to lift an ordinary value into a monadic value
of the monadic type in question.
-* Thirdly, an operation that's often called `bind`. This is another
+* Thirdly, an operation that's often called `bind`. As we said before, this is another
unfortunate name: this operation is only very loosely connected to
what linguists usually mean by "binding." In our option/maybe monad, the
bind operation is:
be defined so as to make sure that the result of `f x` was also
a singing box. If `f` also wanted to insert a song, you'd have to decide
whether both songs would be carried through, or only one of them.
+ (Are you beginning to realize how wierd and wonderful monads
+ can be?)
There is no single `bind` function that dictates how this must go.
For each new monadic type, this has to be worked out in an
`unit`/return function, and the `bind` function.
-A note on notation: Haskell uses the infix operator `>>=` to stand
-for `bind`. Chris really hates that symbol. Following Wadler, he prefers to
-use an infix five-pointed star ⋆, or on a keyboard, `*`. Jim on the other hand
-thinks `>>=` is what the literature uses and students won't be able to
-avoid it. Moreover, although ⋆ is OK (though not a convention that's been picked up), overloading the multiplication symbol invites its own confusion
-and Jim feels very uneasy about that. If not `>>=` then we should use
-some other unfamiliar infix symbol (but `>>=` already is such...)
+A note on notation: Haskell uses the infix operator `>>=` to stand for
+`bind`: wherever you see `u >>= f`, that means `bind u f`.
+Wadler uses ⋆, but that hasn't been widely adopted (unfortunately).
-In any case, the course leaders will work this out somehow. In the meantime,
-as you read around, wherever you see `u >>= f`, that means `bind u f`. Also,
-if you ever see this notation:
+Also, if you ever see this notation:
do
x <- u
y <- v
f x y
-is shorthand for `u >>= (\x -> v >>= (\y -> f x y))`, that is, `bind u (fun x
--> bind v (fun y -> f x y))`. Those who did last week's homework may recognize
-this last expression.
+is shorthand for `u >>= (\x -> v >>= (\y -> f x y))`, that is, `bind u
+(fun x -> bind v (fun y -> f x y))`. Those who did last week's
+homework may recognize this last expression. You can think of the
+notation like this: take the singing box `u` and evaluate it (which
+includes listening to the song). Take the int contained in the
+singing box (the end result of evaluting `u`) and bind the variable
+`x` to that int. So `x <- u` means "Sing me up an int, which I'll call
+`x`".
(Note that the above "do" notation comes from Haskell. We're mentioning it here
because you're likely to see it when reading about monads. It won't work in
them from hurting the people that use them or themselves.
* **Left identity: unit is a left identity for the bind operation.**
- That is, for all `f:'a -> 'a m`, where `'a m` is a monadic
- type, we have `(unit x) * f == f x`. For instance, `unit` is itself
+ That is, for all `f:'a -> 'b m`, where `'b m` is a monadic
+ type, we have `(unit x) >>= f == f x`. For instance, `unit` is itself
a function of type `'a -> 'a m`, so we can use it for `f`:
# let unit x = Some x;;
val unit : 'a -> 'a option = <fun>
- # let ( * ) u f = match u with None -> None | Some x -> f x;;
- val ( * ) : 'a option -> ('a -> 'b option) -> 'b option = <fun>
+ # let ( >>= ) u f = match u with None -> None | Some x -> f x;;
+ val ( >>= ) : 'a option -> ('a -> 'b option) -> 'b option = <fun>
The parentheses is the magic for telling OCaml that the
function to be defined (in this case, the name of the function
- is `*`, pronounced "bind") is an infix operator, so we write
- `u * f` or `( * ) u f` instead of `* u f`. Now:
+ is `>>=`, pronounced "bind") is an infix operator, so we write
+ `u >>= f` or equivalently `( >>= ) u f` instead of `>>= u
+ f`.
# unit 2;;
- : int option = Some 2
- # unit 2 * unit;;
+ # unit 2 >>= unit;;
- : int option = Some 2
+ Now, for a less trivial instance of a function from `int`s to `int option`s:
+
# let divide x y = if 0 = y then None else Some (x/y);;
val divide : int -> int -> int option = <fun>
# divide 6 2;;
- : int option = Some 3
- # unit 2 * divide 6;;
+ # unit 2 >>= divide 6;;
- : int option = Some 3
# divide 6 0;;
- : int option = None
- # unit 0 * divide 6;;
+ # unit 0 >>= divide 6;;
- : int option = None
* **Associativity: bind obeys a kind of associativity**. Like this:
- (u * f) * g == u * (fun x -> f x * g)
+ (u >>= f) >>= g == u >>= (fun x -> f x >>= g)
- If you don't understand why the lambda form is necessary (the "fun
- x" part), you need to look again at the type of `bind`.
+ If you don't understand why the lambda form is necessary (the
+ "fun x -> ..." part), you need to look again at the type of `bind`.
- Some examples of associativity in the option monad:
+ Some examples of associativity in the option monad (bear in
+ mind that in the Ocaml implementation of integer division, 2/3
+ evaluates to zero, throwing away the remainder):
- # Some 3 * unit * unit;;
+ # Some 3 >>= unit >>= unit;;
- : int option = Some 3
- # Some 3 * (fun x -> unit x * unit);;
+ # Some 3 >>= (fun x -> unit x >>= unit);;
- : int option = Some 3
- # Some 3 * divide 6 * divide 2;;
+ # Some 3 >>= divide 6 >>= divide 2;;
- : int option = Some 1
- # Some 3 * (fun x -> divide 6 x * divide 2);;
+ # Some 3 >>= (fun x -> divide 6 x >>= divide 2);;
- : int option = Some 1
- # Some 3 * divide 2 * divide 6;;
+ # Some 3 >>= divide 2 >>= divide 6;;
- : int option = None
- # Some 3 * (fun x -> divide 2 x * divide 6);;
+ # Some 3 >>= (fun x -> divide 2 x >>= divide 6);;
- : int option = None
Of course, associativity must hold for *arbitrary* functions of
-type `'a -> 'a m`, where `m` is the monad type. It's easy to
+type `'a -> 'b m`, where `m` is the monad type. It's easy to
convince yourself that the `bind` operation for the option monad
obeys associativity by dividing the inputs into cases: if `u`
matches `None`, both computations will result in `None`; if
to `g y`.
* **Right identity: unit is a right identity for bind.** That is,
- `u * unit == u` for all monad objects `u`. For instance,
+ `u >>= unit == u` for all monad objects `u`. For instance,
- # Some 3 * unit;;
+ # Some 3 >>= unit;;
- : int option = Some 3
- # None * unit;;
+ # None >>= unit;;
- : 'a option = None
If you studied algebra, you'll remember that a *monoid* is an
associative operation with a left and right identity. For instance,
the natural numbers along with multiplication form a monoid with 1
-serving as the left and right identity. That is, temporarily using
-`*` to mean arithmetic multiplication, `1 * u == u == u * 1` for all
+serving as the left and right identity. That is, `1 * u == u == u * 1` for all
`u`, and `(u * v) * w == u * (v * w)` for all `u`, `v`, and `w`. As
presented here, a monad is not exactly a monoid, because (unlike the
arguments of a monoid operation) the two arguments of the bind are of
different types. But it's possible to make the connection between
monads and monoids much closer. This is discussed in [Monads in Category
-Theory](/advanced_notes/monads_in_category_theory).
+Theory](/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory).
See also <http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monad_Laws>.
Here are some papers that introduced monads into functional programming:
-* [Eugenio Moggi, Notions of Computation and Monads](http://www.disi.unige.it/person/MoggiE/ftp/ic91.pdf): Information and Computation 93 (1) 1991.
+* [Eugenio Moggi, Notions of Computation and Monads](http://www.disi.unige.it/person/MoggiE/ftp/ic91.pdf): Information and Computation 93 (1) 1991. Would be very difficult reading for members of this seminar. However, the following two papers should be accessible.
+
+* [Philip Wadler. The essence of functional programming](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/essence/essence.ps):
+invited talk, *19'th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages*, ACM Press, Albuquerque, January 1992.
+<!-- This paper explores the use monads to structure functional programs. No prior knowledge of monads or category theory is required.
+ Monads increase the ease with which programs may be modified. They can mimic the effect of impure features such as exceptions, state, and continuations; and also provide effects not easily achieved with such features. The types of a program reflect which effects occur.
+ The first section is an extended example of the use of monads. A simple interpreter is modified to support various extra features: error messages, state, output, and non-deterministic choice. The second section describes the relation between monads and continuation-passing style. The third section sketches how monads are used in a compiler for Haskell that is written in Haskell.-->
* [Philip Wadler. Monads for Functional Programming](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf):
in M. Broy, editor, *Marktoberdorf Summer School on Program Design
Calculi*, Springer Verlag, NATO ASI Series F: Computer and systems
sciences, Volume 118, August 1992. Also in J. Jeuring and E. Meijer,
editors, *Advanced Functional Programming*, Springer Verlag,
-LNCS 925, 1995. Some errata fixed August 2001. This paper has a great first
-line: **Shall I be pure, or impure?**
+LNCS 925, 1995. Some errata fixed August 2001.
<!-- The use of monads to structure functional programs is described. Monads provide a convenient framework for simulating effects found in other languages, such as global state, exception handling, output, or non-determinism. Three case studies are looked at in detail: how monads ease the modification of a simple evaluator; how monads act as the basis of a datatype of arrays subject to in-place update; and how monads can be used to build parsers.-->
-* [Philip Wadler. The essence of functional programming](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/essence/essence.ps):
-invited talk, *19'th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages*, ACM Press, Albuquerque, January 1992.
-<!-- This paper explores the use monads to structure functional programs. No prior knowledge of monads or category theory is required.
- Monads increase the ease with which programs may be modified. They can mimic the effect of impure features such as exceptions, state, and continuations; and also provide effects not easily achieved with such features. The types of a program reflect which effects occur.
- The first section is an extended example of the use of monads. A simple interpreter is modified to support various extra features: error messages, state, output, and non-deterministic choice. The second section describes the relation between monads and continuation-passing style. The third section sketches how monads are used in a compiler for Haskell that is written in Haskell.-->
-
-* [Daniel Friedman. A Schemer's View of Monads](/schemersviewofmonads.ps): from <https://www.cs.indiana.edu/cgi-pub/c311/doku.php?id=home> but the link above is to a local copy.
-There's a long list of monad tutorials on the [[Offsite Reading]] page. Skimming the titles makes me laugh.
+There's a long list of monad tutorials on the [[Offsite Reading]] page. (Skimming the titles is somewhat amusing.) If you are confused by monads, make use of these resources. Read around until you find a tutorial pitched at a level that's helpful for you.
In the presentation we gave above---which follows the functional programming conventions---we took `unit`/return and `bind` as the primitive operations. From these a number of other general monad operations can be derived. It's also possible to take some of the others as primitive. The [Monads in Category
-Theory](/advanced_notes/monads_in_category_theory) notes do so, for example.
+Theory](/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory) notes do so, for example.
Here are some of the other general monad operations. You don't have to master these; they're collected here for your reference.
You could also do `bind u (fun x -> v)`; we use the `_` for the function argument to be explicit that that argument is never going to be used.
-The `lift` operation we asked you to define for last week's homework is a common operation. The second argument to `bind` converts `'a` values into `'b m` values---that is, into instances of the monadic type. What if we instead had a function that merely converts `'a` values into `'b` values, and we want to use it with our monadic type. Then we "lift" that function into an operation on the monad. For example:
+The `lift` operation we asked you to define for last week's homework is a common operation. The second argument to `bind` converts `'a` values into `'b m` values---that is, into instances of the monadic type. What if we instead had a function that merely converts `'a` values into `'b` values, and we want to use it with our monadic type? Then we "lift" that function into an operation on the monad. For example:
# let even x = (x mod 2 = 0);;
val g : int -> bool = <fun>
-------------
We're going to be using monads for a number of different things in the
-weeks to come. The first main application will be the State monad,
+weeks to come. One major application will be the State monad,
which will enable us to model mutation: variables whose values appear
to change as the computation progresses. Later, we will study the
Continuation monad.
-In the meantime, we'll look at several linguistic applications for monads, based
-on what's called the *reader monad*.
+But first, we'll look at several linguistic applications for monads, based
+on what's called the *Reader monad*.
-##[[Reader monad]]##
+##[[Reader monad for Variable Binding]]##
-##[[Intensionality monad]]##
+##[[Reader monad for Intensionality]]##