Difference between revisions of "Avoiding IO"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Writer monad: warning about efficiency of list-based logging)
(Numerous formatting and grammatical changes)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Haskell requires an explicit type for operations involving input and output.
 
Haskell requires an explicit type for operations involving input and output.
 
This way it makes a problem explicit, that exists in every language:
 
This way it makes a problem explicit, that exists in every language:
Input and output functions can have so many effects, that the type signature says more or less that almost everything must be expected.
+
input and output definitions can have so many effects, that the type signature says more or less that almost everything must be expected.
 
It is hard to test them, because they can in principle depend on every state of the real world.
 
It is hard to test them, because they can in principle depend on every state of the real world.
Thus in order to maintain modularity you should avoid IO wherever possible.
+
Thus in order to maintain modularity you should avoid I/O wherever possible.
It is too tempting to get rid of IO by <hask>unsafePerformIO</hask>, but we want to present some clean techniques to avoid IO.
+
It is too tempting to disguise the use of I/O with <code>unsafePerformIO</code>, but we want to present some clean techniques to avoid I/O.
   
 
== Lazy construction ==
 
== Lazy construction ==
   
 
You can avoid a series of output functions
 
You can avoid a series of output functions
by constructing a complex data structure with non-IO code
+
by constructing a complex data structure with non-I/O code
 
and output it with one output function.
 
and output it with one output function.
   
Line 17: Line 17:
 
replicateM_ 10 (putStr "foo")
 
replicateM_ 10 (putStr "foo")
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
you can also create the complete string and output it with one call of <hask>putStr</hask>:
+
you can also create the complete string and output it with one call of <code>putStr</code>:
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
 
putStr (concat $ replicate 10 "foo")
 
putStr (concat $ replicate 10 "foo")
Line 34: Line 34:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
which also ensures proper closing of the handle <hask>h</hask> in case of failure.
+
which also ensures proper closing of the handle <code>h</code> in case of failure.
   
Since you have now an expression for the complete result as string, you have a simple object that can be re-used in other contexts. E.g., you can also easily compute the length of the written string using <hask>length</hask> without bothering the file system, again.
+
Since you have now an expression for the complete result as string, you have a simple object that can be re-used in other contexts. For example, you can also easily compute the length of the written string using <code>length</code> without bothering the file system, again.
   
 
== Writer monad ==
 
== Writer monad ==
   
If the only reason that you need IO is to output information (e.g. logging, collecting statistics), a Writer monad might do the job.
+
If the only reason that you need I/O is to output information (e.g. logging, collecting statistics), a Writer monad might do the job.
 
This technique works just fine with lazy construction, especially if the lazy object that you need to create is a [[Monoid]].
 
This technique works just fine with lazy construction, especially if the lazy object that you need to create is a [[Monoid]].
   
Line 55: Line 55:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
(This is "inefficient", because <hask>String</hask> means <hask>[Char]</hask>, <hask>tell</hask> "writes" to the "end" of the log using <hask>mappend</hask>, and <hask>mappend</hask> for lists (i.e. <hask>(++)</hask>) is O(''n''), where ''n'' is the length of the left-hand list (i.e. the log). In other words, the bigger the log gets, the slower logging becomes. To avoid this, you should generally use a type that has O(1) <hask>mappend</hask>, such as <hask>Data.Sequence</hask>, and <hask>fold</hask> the complete log (using [[Foldable]]) afterwards if you need to.)
+
(This is "inefficient", because <code>String</code> means <code>[Char]</code>, <code>tell</code> "writes" to the "end" of the log using <code>mappend</code>, and <code>code</code> for lists (i.e. <code>(++)</code>) is O(''n''), where ''n'' is the length of the left-hand list (i.e. the log). In other words, the bigger the log gets, the slower logging becomes. To avoid this, you should generally use a type that has O(1) <code>mappend</code>, such as <code>Data.Sequence</code>, and <code>fold</code> the complete log (using [[Foldable]]) afterwards if you need to.)
   
 
== State monad ==
 
== State monad ==
   
If you want to maintain a running state, it is tempting to use <hask>IORef</hask>.
+
If you want to maintain a running state, it is tempting to use <code>IORef</code>.
But this is not necessary, since there is the comfortable <hask>State</hask> monad and its transformer counterpart.
+
But this is not necessary, since there is the comfortable <code>State</code> monad and its transformer counterpart.
   
 
Another example is random number generation.
 
Another example is random number generation.
Line 68: Line 68:
 
This state can be hidden in a State monad.
 
This state can be hidden in a State monad.
   
Example: A function which computes a random value with respect to a custom distribution (<hask>distInv</hask> is the inverse of the distribution function) can be defined via IO
+
Example: A function which computes a random value with respect to a custom distribution (<code>distInv</code> is the inverse of the distribution function) can be defined using I/O
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 83: Line 83:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
You can get actual values by running the <hask>State</hask> as follows:
+
You can get actual values by running the <code>State</code> as follows:
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 89: Line 89:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
== ST monad ==
+
== The monadic ST type ==
   
 
In some cases a state monad is simply not efficient enough.
 
In some cases a state monad is simply not efficient enough.
 
Say the state is an array and the update operations are modification of single array elements.
 
Say the state is an array and the update operations are modification of single array elements.
For this kind of application the [[Monad/ST|State Thread monad]] <hask>ST</hask> was invented.
+
For this kind of application the [[Monad/ST|State Thread monad]] <code>ST</code> was invented.
It provides <hask>STRef</hask> as replacement for <hask>IORef</hask>,
+
It provides <code>STRef</code> as replacement for <code>IORef</code>,
<hask>STArray</hask> as replacement for <hask>IOArray</hask>,
+
<code>STArray</code> as replacement for <code>IOArray</code>,
<hask>STUArray</hask> as replacement for <hask>IOUArray</hask>,
+
<code>STUArray</code> as replacement for <code>IOUArray</code>,
and you can define new operations in ST, but then you need to resort to unsafe operations by using the <hask>unsafeIOtoST</hask> function.
+
and you can define new operations in <code>ST</code>, but then you need to resort to unsafe operations by using the <code>unsafeIOtoST</code> function.
You can escape from ST to non-monadic code in a safe, and in many cases efficient, way.
+
You can escape from <code>ST</code> to non-monadic code in a safe, and in many cases efficient, way.
   
 
== Applicative functor style ==
 
== Applicative functor style ==
Line 111: Line 111:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
You can only call this function within the IO monad, and it is not very efficient either, since for every translation the dictionary must be read from disk. You can rewrite this function in a way that it generates a non-monadic function that can be used anywhere.
+
You can only call this function within the I/O monad, and it is not very efficient either, since for every translation the dictionary must be read from disk. You can rewrite this function in a way that it generates a non-monadic function that can be used anywhere.
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 125: Line 125:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
I call this Applicative Functor style because you can use the application operator from <hask>Control.Applicative</hask>:
+
I call this Applicative Functor style because you can use the application operator from <code>Control.Applicative</code>:
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 134: Line 134:
 
== Custom monad type class ==
 
== Custom monad type class ==
   
If you only use a small set of IO operations in otherwise non-IO code
+
If you only use a small set of I/O operations in otherwise non-I/O code
 
you may define a custom monad type class which implements just these functions.
 
you may define a custom monad type class which implements just these functions.
You can then implement these functions based on IO for the application and without IO for the test suite.
+
You can then implement these functions based on I/O for the application and without I/O for the test suite.
   
 
As an example consider the function
 
As an example consider the function
Line 145: Line 145:
   
 
which converts an English phrase to the currently configured user language of the system.
 
which converts an English phrase to the currently configured user language of the system.
You can abstract the <hask>IO</hask> away using
+
You can abstract the <code>IO</code> type away using
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 159: Line 159:
   
 
where the first instance can be used for the application and the second one for "dry" tests.
 
where the first instance can be used for the application and the second one for "dry" tests.
For more sophisticated tests, you may load a dictionary into a <hask>Map</hask> and use this for translation.
+
For more sophisticated tests, you may load a dictionary into a <code>Map</code> and use this for translation.
   
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
Line 168: Line 168:
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
== Last resort ==
+
== The last resort ==
   
The method of last resort is <hask>unsafePerformIO</hask>. When you apply it, think about how to reduce its use and how you can encapsulate it in a library with a well chosen interface. Since <hask>unsafePerformIO</hask> makes functions look like non-IO functions, they should also behave like non-IO functions. E.g. file access must not be hidden in <hask>unsafePerformIO</hask>, whereas careful memory manipulation may be safe – see for instance the <hask>Data.ByteString</hask> module.
+
The method of last resort is <code>unsafePerformIO</code>. When you apply it, think about how to reduce its use and how you can encapsulate it in a library with a well chosen interface. Since <code>unsafePerformIO</code> makes I/O operations look like non-I/O functions, they should also behave like non-I/O functions e.g. file access must not be hidden by using <code>unsafePerformIO</code>, whereas careful memory manipulation may be safe – see for instance the <code>Data.ByteString</code> module.
   
 
[[Category:Monad]]
 
[[Category:Monad]]

Revision as of 23:58, 15 December 2020

Haskell requires an explicit type for operations involving input and output. This way it makes a problem explicit, that exists in every language: input and output definitions can have so many effects, that the type signature says more or less that almost everything must be expected. It is hard to test them, because they can in principle depend on every state of the real world. Thus in order to maintain modularity you should avoid I/O wherever possible. It is too tempting to disguise the use of I/O with unsafePerformIO, but we want to present some clean techniques to avoid I/O.

Lazy construction

You can avoid a series of output functions by constructing a complex data structure with non-I/O code and output it with one output function.

Instead of

-- import Control.Monad (replicateM_)
replicateM_ 10 (putStr "foo")

you can also create the complete string and output it with one call of putStr:

putStr (concat $ replicate 10 "foo")

Similarly,

do
  h <- openFile "foo" WriteMode
  replicateM_ 10 (hPutStr h "bar")
  hClose h

can be shortened to

writeFile "foo" (concat $ replicate 10 "bar")

which also ensures proper closing of the handle h in case of failure.

Since you have now an expression for the complete result as string, you have a simple object that can be re-used in other contexts. For example, you can also easily compute the length of the written string using length without bothering the file system, again.

Writer monad

If the only reason that you need I/O is to output information (e.g. logging, collecting statistics), a Writer monad might do the job. This technique works just fine with lazy construction, especially if the lazy object that you need to create is a Monoid.

An inefficient example of logging:

logText :: (MonadWriter String m) => String -> m ()
logText text = tell (text ++ "\n")

  do
    logText "Before operation A"
    opA
    logText "After operation A"

(This is "inefficient", because String means [Char], tell "writes" to the "end" of the log using mappend, and code for lists (i.e. (++)) is O(n), where n is the length of the left-hand list (i.e. the log). In other words, the bigger the log gets, the slower logging becomes. To avoid this, you should generally use a type that has O(1) mappend, such as Data.Sequence, and fold the complete log (using Foldable) afterwards if you need to.)

State monad

If you want to maintain a running state, it is tempting to use IORef. But this is not necessary, since there is the comfortable State monad and its transformer counterpart.

Another example is random number generation. In cases where no real random numbers are required, but only arbitrary numbers, you do not need access to the outside world. You can simply use a pseudo random number generator with an explicit state. This state can be hidden in a State monad.

Example: A function which computes a random value with respect to a custom distribution (distInv is the inverse of the distribution function) can be defined using I/O

randomDist :: (Random a, Num a) => (a -> a) -> IO a
randomDist distInv = liftM distInv (randomRIO (0,1))

but there is no need to do so.

You don't need the state of the whole world just for remembering the state of a random number generator, instead you can use something similar to this:

randomDist :: (RandomGen g, Random a, Num a) => (a -> a) -> State g a
randomDist distInv = liftM distInv (State (randomR (0,1)))

You can get actual values by running the State as follows:

evalState (randomDist distInv) (mkStdGen an_arbitrary_seed)

The monadic ST type

In some cases a state monad is simply not efficient enough. Say the state is an array and the update operations are modification of single array elements. For this kind of application the State Thread monad ST was invented. It provides STRef as replacement for IORef, STArray as replacement for IOArray, STUArray as replacement for IOUArray, and you can define new operations in ST, but then you need to resort to unsafe operations by using the unsafeIOtoST function. You can escape from ST to non-monadic code in a safe, and in many cases efficient, way.

Applicative functor style

Say you have written the function

translate :: String -> IO String
translate word =
   do dict <- readDictionary "english-german.dict"
      return (Map.findWithDefault word word dict)

You can only call this function within the I/O monad, and it is not very efficient either, since for every translation the dictionary must be read from disk. You can rewrite this function in a way that it generates a non-monadic function that can be used anywhere.

makeTranslator :: IO (String -> String)
makeTranslator =
   do dict <- readDictionary "english-german.dict"
      return (\word -> Map.findWithDefault word word dict)

main :: IO ()
main =
   do translate <- makeTranslator
      putStr (unlines (map translate ["foo", "bar"]))

I call this Applicative Functor style because you can use the application operator from Control.Applicative:

makeTranslator <*> getLine


Custom monad type class

If you only use a small set of I/O operations in otherwise non-I/O code you may define a custom monad type class which implements just these functions. You can then implement these functions based on I/O for the application and without I/O for the test suite.

As an example consider the function

localeTextIO :: String -> IO String

which converts an English phrase to the currently configured user language of the system. You can abstract the IO type away using

class Monad m => Locale m where
   localeText :: String -> m String

instance Locale IO where
   localeText = localeTextIO

instance Locale Identity where
   localeText = Identity

where the first instance can be used for the application and the second one for "dry" tests. For more sophisticated tests, you may load a dictionary into a Map and use this for translation.

newtype Interpreter a = Interpreter (Reader (Map String String) a)

instance Locale Interpreter where
   localeText text = Interpreter $ fmap (Map.findWithDefault text text) ask

The last resort

The method of last resort is unsafePerformIO. When you apply it, think about how to reduce its use and how you can encapsulate it in a library with a well chosen interface. Since unsafePerformIO makes I/O operations look like non-I/O functions, they should also behave like non-I/O functions e.g. file access must not be hidden by using unsafePerformIO, whereas careful memory manipulation may be safe – see for instance the Data.ByteString module.