Unlike the previous cases, instead of turning a tree into a function
from some input to a result, this transformer replaces each `int` with
- a list of `int`'s. We might also have done this with a Reader monad, though then our environments would need to be of type `int -> int list`. Experiment with what happens if you supply the `tree_monadize` based on the List monad an operation like `fun -> [ i; [2*i; 3*i] ]`. Use small trees for your experiment.
+ a list of `int`'s. We might also have done this with a Reader monad, though then our environments would need to be of type `int -> int list`. Experiment with what happens if you supply the `tree_monadize` based on the List monad an operation like `fun i -> [2*i; 3*i]`. Use small trees for your experiment.
[Why is the argument to `tree_monadize` `int -> int list list` instead
of `int -> int list`? Well, as usual, the List monad bind operation
# tree_monadize (fun a -> fun k -> a :: k a) t1 (fun t -> []);;
- : int list = [2; 3; 5; 7; 11]
-We have found a way of collapsing a tree into a list of its leaves. Can you trace how this is working? Think first about what the operation `fun a -> fun k -> a :: k a` does when you apply it to a plain `int`, and the continuation `fun _ -> []`. Then given what we've said about `tree_monadize`, what should we expect `tree_monadize (fun a -> fun k -> a :: k a` to do?
+We have found a way of collapsing a tree into a list of its
+leaves. Can you trace how this is working? Think first about what the
+operation `fun a -> fun k -> a :: k a` does when you apply it to a
+plain `int`, and the continuation `fun _ -> []`. Then given what we've
+said about `tree_monadize`, what should we expect `tree_monadize (fun
+a -> fun k -> a :: k a` to do?
+
+In a moment, we'll return to the same-fringe problem. Since the
+simple but inefficient way to solve it is to map each tree to a list
+of its leaves, this transformation is on the path to a more efficient
+solution. We'll just have to figure out how to postpone computing the
+tail of the list until its needed...
The Continuation monad is amazingly flexible; we can use it to
simulate some of the computations performed above. To see how, first
----------------------------------------------------
We've seen two solutions to the same fringe problem so far.
-The simplest is to map each tree to a list of its leaves, then compare
-the lists. But if the fringes differ in an early position, we've
-wasted our time visiting the rest of the tree.
+The problem, recall, is to take two trees and decide whether they have
+the same leaves in the same order.
+
+<pre>
+ ta tb tc
+ . . .
+_|__ _|__ _|__
+| | | | | |
+1 . . 3 1 .
+ _|__ _|__ _|__
+ | | | | | |
+ 2 3 1 2 3 2
+
+let ta = Node (Leaf 1, Node (Leaf 2, Leaf 3));;
+let tb = Node (Node (Leaf 1, Leaf 2), Leaf 3);;
+let tc = Node (Leaf 1, Node (Leaf 3, Leaf 2));;
+</pre>
+
+So `ta` and `tb` are different trees that have the same fringe, but
+`ta` and `tc` are not.
+
+The simplest solution is to map each tree to a list of its leaves,
+then compare the lists. But because we will have computed the entire
+fringe before starting the comparison, if the fringes differ in an
+early position, we've wasted our time examining the rest of the trees.
The second solution was to use tree zippers and mutable state to
-simulate coroutines. We would unzip the first tree until we found the
-next leaf, then store the zipper structure in the mutable variable
-while we turned our attention to the other tree. Because we stop as
-soon as we find the first mismatched leaf, this solution does not have
-the flaw just mentioned of the solution that maps both trees to a list
-of leaves before beginning comparison.
+simulate coroutines (see [[coroutines and aborts]]). In that
+solution, we pulled the zipper on the first tree until we found the
+next leaf, then stored the zipper structure in the mutable variable
+while we turned our attention to the other tree. Because we stopped
+as soon as we find the first mismatched leaf, this solution does not
+have the flaw just mentioned of the solution that maps both trees to a
+list of leaves before beginning comparison.
Since zippers are just continuations reified, we expect that the
solution in terms of zippers can be reworked using continuations, and
-this is indeed the case. To make this work in the most convenient
-way, we need to use the fully general type for continuations just mentioned.
-
-tree_monadize (fun a k -> a, k a) t1 (fun t -> 0);;
+this is indeed the case. Before we can arrive at a solution, however,
+we must define a data structure called a stream:
+
+ type 'a stream = End | Next of 'a * (unit -> 'a stream);;
+
+A stream is like a list in that it contains a series of objects (all
+of the same type, here, type `'a`). The first object in the stream
+corresponds to the head of a list, which we pair with a stream
+representing the rest of a the list. There is a special stream called
+`End` that represents a stream that contains no (more) elements,
+analogous to the empty list `[]`.
+
+Actually, we pair each element not with a stream, but with a thunked
+stream, that is, a function from the unit type to streams. The idea
+is that the next element in the stream is not computed until we forced
+the thunk by applying it to the unit:
+
+<pre>
+# let rec make_int_stream i = Next (i, fun () -> make_int_stream (i + 1));;
+val make_int_stream : int -> int stream = <fun>
+# let int_stream = make_int_stream 1;;
+val int_stream : int stream = Next (1, <fun>) (* First element: 1 *)
+# match int_stream with Next (i, rest) -> rest;;
+- : unit -> int stream = <fun> (* Rest: a thunk *)
+
+(* Force the thunk to compute the second element *)
+# (match int_stream with Next (i, rest) -> rest) ();;
+- : int stream = Next (2, <fun>)
+</pre>
+
+You can think of `int_stream` as a functional object that provides
+access to an infinite sequence of integers, one at a time. It's as if
+we had written `[1;2;...]` where `...` meant "continue indefinitely".
+
+So, with streams in hand, we need only rewrite our continuation tree
+monadizer so that instead of mapping trees to lists, it maps them to
+streams. Instead of
+
+ # tree_monadize (fun a k -> a :: k a) t1 (fun t -> []);;
+ - : int list = [2; 3; 5; 7; 11]
+as above, we have
+
+ # tree_monadize (fun i k -> Next (i, fun () -> k ())) t1 (fun _ -> End);;
+ - : int stream = Next (2, <fun>)
+
+We can see the first element in the stream, the first leaf (namely,
+2), but in order to see the next, we'll have to force a thunk.
+
+Then to complete the same-fringe function, we simply convert both
+trees into leaf-streams, then compare the streams element by element.
+The code is enitrely routine, but for the sake of completeness, here it is:
+
+<pre>
+let rec compare_streams stream1 stream2 =
+ match stream1, stream2 with
+ | End, End -> true (* Done! Fringes match. *)
+ | Next (next1, rest1), Next (next2, rest2) when next1 = next2 -> compare_streams (rest1 ()) (rest2 ())
+ | _ -> false;;
+
+let same_fringe t1 t2 =
+ let stream1 = tree_monadize (fun i k -> Next (i, fun () -> k ())) t1 (fun _ -> End) in
+ let stream2 = tree_monadize (fun i k -> Next (i, fun () -> k ())) t2 (fun _ -> End) in
+ compare_streams stream1 stream2;;
+</pre>
+
+Notice the forcing of the thunks in the recursive call to
+`compare_streams`. So indeed:
+
+<pre>
+# same_fringe ta tb;;
+- : bool = true
+# same_fringe ta tc;;
+- : bool = false
+</pre>
+
+Now, this implementation is a bit silly, since in order to convert the
+trees to leaf streams, our tree_monadizer function has to visit every
+node in the tree. But if we needed to compare each tree to a large
+set of other trees, we could arrange to monadize each tree only once,
+and then run compare_streams on the monadized trees.
+
+By the way, what if you have reason to believe that the fringes of
+your trees are more likely to differ near the right edge than the left
+edge? If we reverse evaluation order in the tree_monadizer function,
+as shown above when we replaced leaves with their ordinal position,
+then the resulting streams would produce leaves from the right to the
+left.
+
+The idea of using continuations to characterize natural language meaning
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+We might a philosopher or a linguist be interested in continuations,
+especially if efficiency of computation is usually not an issue?
+Well, the application of continuations to the same-fringe problem
+shows that continuations can manage order of evaluation in a
+well-controlled manner. In a series of papers, one of us (Barker) and
+Ken Shan have argued that a number of phenomena in natural langauge
+semantics are sensitive to the order of evaluation. We can't
+reproduce all of the intricate arguments here, but we can give a sense
+of how the analyses use continuations to achieve an analysis of
+natural language meaning.
+
+**Quantification and default quantifier scope construal**.
+
+We saw in the copy-string example and in the same-fringe example that
+local properties of a tree (whether a character is `S` or not, which
+integer occurs at some leaf position) can control global properties of
+the computation (whether the preceeding string is copied or not,
+whether the computation halts or proceeds). Local control of
+surrounding context is a reasonable description of in-situ
+quantification.
+
+ (1) John saw everyone yesterday.
+
+This sentence means (roughly)
+
+ &Forall; x . yesterday(saw x) john
+
+That is, the quantifier *everyone* contributes a variable in the
+direct object position, and a universal quantifier that takes scope
+over the whole sentence. If we have a lexical meaning function like
+the following:
+
+<pre>
+let lex (s:string) k = match s with
+ | "everyone" -> Node (Leaf "forall x", k "x")
+ | "someone" -> Node (Leaf "exists y", k "y")
+ | _ -> k s;;
+
+let sentence1 = Node (Leaf "John",
+ Node (Node (Leaf "saw",
+ Leaf "everyone"),
+ Leaf "yesterday"));;
+</pre>
+
+Then we can crudely approximate quantification as follows:
+
+<pre>
+# tree_monadize lex sentence1 (fun x -> x);;
+- : string tree =
+Node
+ (Leaf "forall x",
+ Node (Leaf "John", Node (Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "x"), Leaf "yesterday")))
+</pre>
+
+In order to see the effects of evaluation order,
+observe what happens when we combine two quantifiers in the same
+sentence:
+
+<pre>
+# let sentence2 = Node (Leaf "everyone", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "someone"));;
+# tree_monadize lex sentence2 (fun x -> x);;
+- : string tree =
+Node
+ (Leaf "forall x",
+ Node (Leaf "exists y", Node (Leaf "x", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "y"))))
+</pre>
+
+The universal takes scope over the existential. If, however, we
+replace the usual tree_monadizer with tree_monadizer_rev, we get
+inverse scope:
+
+<pre>
+# tree_monadize_rev lex sentence2 (fun x -> x);;
+- : string tree =
+Node
+ (Leaf "exists y",
+ Node (Leaf "forall x", Node (Leaf "x", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "y"))))
+</pre>
+
+There are many crucially important details about quantification that
+are being simplified here, and the continuation treatment here is not
+scalable for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, it will serve to give
+an idea of how continuations can provide insight into the behavior of
+quantifiers.
The Binary Tree monad