[[!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 v with
+ None -> None
+ | Some 0 -> None
+ | Some y -> (match u with
+ None -> None
+ | Some x -> 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
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, and I'll call
+it `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
* [Eugenio Moggi, Notions of Computation and Monads](http://www.disi.unige.it/person/MoggiE/ftp/ic91.pdf): Information and Computation 93 (1) 1991.
* [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.
+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?**
<!-- 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):