Difference between revisions of "Output/Input"
(Dropped use of bang-patterns) |
m (More minor changes) |
||
| Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
* using implementation-specific extensions - work needed to track relevant extensions, and possible conflicts with Haskell semantics. |
* using implementation-specific extensions - work needed to track relevant extensions, and possible conflicts with Haskell semantics. |
||
| − | For now, I'll just use the extensions - they're ugly, but at least they' |
+ | For now, I'll just use the extensions - they're ugly, but at least they'll be contained, as they are in those alternate definitions of <code>seq</code>. But who knows - if this approach to I/O proves useful enough, it might make its way into a future Haskell standard...that's how <code>IO</code> happened[4]. |
In the meantime, take a deep breath: |
In the meantime, take a deep breath: |
||
| Line 311: | Line 311: | ||
class Partible a where |
class Partible a where |
||
| − | part :: a -> (a, a) |
+ | part :: a -> (a, a) |
parts :: a -> [a] |
parts :: a -> [a] |
||
-- Minimal complete definition: part or parts |
-- Minimal complete definition: part or parts |
||
| − | part u = case parts u of u1:u2:_ -> (u1, u2) |
+ | part u = case parts u of u1:u2:_ -> (u1, u2) |
parts u = case part u of (u1, u2) -> u1 : parts u2 |
parts u = case part u of (u1, u2) -> u1 : parts u2 |
||
</haskell> |
</haskell> |
||
Revision as of 01:23, 25 August 2020
Let me guess...you've read every other guide, tutorial, lesson and introduction and none of them have helped - you still don't understand I/O in Haskell.
Alright then - have a look at this:
data OI -- abstract, primitive
partOI :: OI -> (OI, OI) --
getchar :: OI -> Char -- primitives
putchar :: Char -> OI -> () --
seq :: a -> b -> b -- also primitive
instance Partible OI where ...
class Partible a where
part :: a -> (a, a)
parts :: a -> [a]
.
.
.
No up-front explanation; I'm guessing you've seen more than enough of those, so I'm trying something different. I will explain it later...
Yes, of course there's more to Haskell I/O than getchar and putchar; I've downsized it for convenience. If you want, you can add the rest afterwards...
Yes, they're somewhat arcane, but they can be used to emulate all the classic approaches to I/O in Haskell, albeit in miniature:
module ClassicIO where
import Prelude(Char, String)
import Prelude(($), (.))
import Data.List(map, foldr, zipWith)
import OutputInput
import Partible
-- simple text --
{- main :: (String -> String) -}
runMain_text :: (String -> String) -> OI -> ()
runMain_text main = \u -> case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
putchars (main (getchars u1)) u2
getchars :: OI -> String
getchars = map getchar . parts
putchars :: String -> OI -> ()
putchars s = foldr seq () . zipWith putchar s . parts
-- dialogues --
{- main :: Dialogue -}
runMain_dial :: Dialogue -> OI -> ()
runMain_dial main = \u -> foldr seq () $ yet $
\l -> zipWith respond (main l) (parts u)
type Dialogue = [Response] -> [Request]
data Request = Getq | Putq Char
data Response = Getp Char | Putp
yet :: (a -> a) -> a
yet f = f (yet f)
respond :: Request -> OI -> Response
respond Getq = \u -> case getchar u of c -> Getp c
respond (Putq c) = \u -> seq (putchar c u) Putp
-- continuations --
{- main :: (() -> IOResult) -> IOResult -}
runMain_cont :: ((() -> IOResult) -> IOResult) -> OI -> ()
runMain_cont main = call (main done)
newtype IOResult = R (OI -> ())
call :: IOResult -> OI -> ()
call (R a) = a
done :: () -> IOResult
done () = R $ \ u -> part u `seq` ()
getchar_cont :: (Char -> IOResult) -> IOResult
getchar_cont k = R $ \u -> case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
case getchar u1 of
c -> seq c (call (k c) u2)
putchar_cont :: Char -> (() -> IOResult) -> IOResult
putchar_cont c k = R $ \u -> case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
seq (putchar c u) (call (k ()) u2)
-- state-passing --
{- main :: IOState -> ((), IOState) -}
runMain_stat :: (IOState -> ((), IOState)) -> OI -> ()
runMain_stat main = \u -> seq (main (ini_st u)) ()
newtype IOState = S OI
ini_st :: OI -> IOState
ini_st = S
getchar_stat :: IOState -> (Char, IOState)
getchar_stat (S u) = case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
case getchar u1 of
c -> seq c (c, S u2)
putchar_stat :: Char -> IOState -> ((), IOState)
putchar_stat c (S u) = case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
seq (putchar c u1) ((), S u2)
-- and those weird, fickle things ;-)
{- main :: IO () -}
runMain_wfth :: IO () -> OI -> ()
runMain_wfth main = main
type IO a = OI -> a
getchar_wfth :: IO Char
getchar_wfth = getchar
putchar_wfth :: Char -> IO ()
putchar_wfth = putchar
unit :: a -> IO a
unit x = \u -> part u `seq` x
bind :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
bind m k = \u -> case part u of
(u1, u2) -> (\x -> x `seq` k x u2) (m u1)
Here are examples for each of those approaches:
module Echoes where
import Prelude(String, Char(..), Eq(..))
import Prelude(($))
import ClassicIO
import OutputInput(runOI)
echo_text :: String -> String
echo_text (c:cs) = if c == '\n' then [] else c : echo_text cs
echo_dial :: Dialogue
echo_dial p = Getq :
case p of
Getp c : p' ->
if c == '\n' then
[]
else
Putq c :
case p' of
Putp : p'' -> echo_dial p''
echo_cont :: (() -> IOResult) -> IOResult
echo_cont k = getchar_cont $ \c ->
if c == '\n' then
k ()
else
putchar_cont c (\_ -> echo_cont k)
echo_stat :: IOState -> ((), IOState)
echo_stat s = case getchar_stat s of
(c, s') ->
if c == '\n' then
((), s')
else
case putchar_stat c s' of
(_, s'') -> echo_stat s''
echo_wfth :: IO ()
echo_wfth = getchar_wfth `bind` \c ->
if c == '\n' then
unit ()
else
putchar_wfth c `bind` \_ -> echo_wfth
What was that - using Prelude.seq that way won't work in Haskell 2010? You are correct!
This should work as expected[1][2]:
-- for GHC 8.6.5
{-# LANGUAGE CPP #-}
#define during seq
module Sequential(seq) where
import qualified Prelude(during)
infixr 0 `seq`
seq :: a -> b -> b
seq x y = Prelude.during x (case x of _ -> y)
It didn't work? Try this instead:
-- for GHC 8.6.5
{-# LANGUAGE CPP #-}
#define during seq
module Sequential(seq) where
import qualified Prelude(during)
import GHC.Base(lazy)
infixr 0 `seq`
seq :: a -> b -> b
seq x y = Prelude.during x (lazy y)
As for those extensions - they stay with each definition.
That still didn't work? Well, give this a try:
yet :: (a -> a) -> a
yet f = y where y = f y
Now that we're firmly on the topic of implementation details, did you notice how easy it was to define that allegedly warm, fuzzy[3] IO type using this curious new OI type, and those primitives?
Sometimes that can be a hint that doing the opposite will be difficult or even impossible to do while staying within standard Haskell 2010. As it happens, this is one of those cases...
To define OI, partOI, getchar and putchar will require:
- modifying your preferred Haskell implementation - lots of work;
- using some other language for the definitions, with Haskell then calling the foreign code - extra work to deal with two different languages;
- using unsafe or implementation-specific primitives - work needed to avoid conflicts with Haskell semantics;
- using implementation-specific extensions - work needed to track relevant extensions, and possible conflicts with Haskell semantics.
For now, I'll just use the extensions - they're ugly, but at least they'll be contained, as they are in those alternate definitions of seq. But who knows - if this approach to I/O proves useful enough, it might make its way into a future Haskell standard...that's how IO happened[4].
In the meantime, take a deep breath:
-- for GHC 8.6.5
{-# LANGUAGE MagicHash, UnboxedTuples #-}
module OutputInput(OI, runOI, seq, getchar, putchar) where
import Prelude(Char, String)
import Prelude(($), (++), putChar, getChar, error)
import Partible
import Sequential
import GHC.Base(IO(..), State#, MutVar#, RealWorld)
import GHC.Base(seq#, realWorld#, newMutVar#, atomicModifyMutVar#)
data OI = OI OI#
instance Partible OI where
part = partOI
partOI :: OI -> (OI, OI)
partOI (OI r) = case expire# "partOI" r realWorld# of
s -> case newMutVar# () s of
(# s', r1 #) ->
case newMutVar# () s' of
(# _, r2 #) -> (OI r1, OI r2)
runOI :: (OI -> a) -> IO a
runOI g = IO $ \s -> case newMutVar# () s of
(# s', r #) -> seq# (g (OI r)) s'
getchar :: OI -> Char
getchar (OI r) = case expire# "getchar" r realWorld# of
s -> case undo# getChar s of
(# _, c #) -> c
putchar :: Char -> OI -> ()
putchar c (OI r) = case expire# "putchar" r realWorld# of
s -> case undo# (putChar c) s of
(# _, x #) -> x
-- Local definitions
--
type OI# = MutVar# RealWorld ()
expire# :: String -> MutVar# s () -> State# s -> State# s
expire# name r s = case atomicModifyMutVar# r flick s of
(# s', _ #) -> s'
where
flick :: () -> (a, ())
flick x@() = (error nowUsed, x)
nowUsed = name ++ ": argument already used"
undo# :: IO a -> State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #)
undo# (IO a) = a
Now you can start breathing again :-)
module Partible where
class Partible a where
part :: a -> (a, a)
parts :: a -> [a]
-- Minimal complete definition: part or parts
part u = case parts u of u1:u2:_ -> (u1, u2)
parts u = case part u of (u1, u2) -> u1 : parts u2
If you remember, I dispensed with an up-front explanation to try something different. Now that you've seen just how different this all is, here's the explanation...
That abstract partOI and its overloaded associates part and parts? They help an optimising Haskell implementation to determine when it's safe to use those optimisations. Consider this definition:
testme n = n^2 + n^2
One simple optimisation would be to replace the duplicates of n^2 with a single, shared local definition:
testme n = let x = n^2 in x + x
This definition:
main' u = putchars "ha" u `seq` putchars "ha" u
would likewise be rewritten, with the result being:
main' u = let x = putchars "ha" u in x `seq` x
but, as noted by Philip Wadler[5]:
[...] the laugh is on us: the program prints only a single
"ha", at the time variablexis bound. In the presence of side effects, equational reasoning in its simplest form
becomes invalid.
Equational reasoning is the basis for that simple optimisation and many others in implementations like GHC - so far they've been serving us quite well.
What - just treat I/O-centric definitions as some special case by modifying GHC? Haskell implementations like GHC are complicated enough as is!
The problem is being caused by the code being treated as though it's pure, so let's modify the code instead. In this case, the easiest solution is to make all calls to I/O-centric definitions unique:
main u = case part u of
(u1, u2) ->
putchars "ha" u1 `seq` putchars "ha" u2
But what about:
oops g h u = g u `seq` h u
main' = oops (putchars "ha") (putchars "ha")
Will the laugh be on us, again?
This is Haskell, not Clean[6] - there are no uniqueness types to help fend off such potentially-troublesome expressions. For now, the simplest way to make sure OI values are only used once is to have the implementation treat their reuse as being invalid e.g. by throwing an exception or raising an error to stop the offending program.
In the prototype implementation, the maintenance of this all-important single-use property is performed by expire#.
Now for the much-maligned[7] seq...you could be tempted into avoiding its use by using a new data type:
newtype Result a = Is a
getchar' :: OI -> Result Char
putchar' :: Char -> OI -> Result ()
and case-expressions:
respond' :: Request -> OI -> Response
respond' Getq = \u -> case getchar' u of Is c -> Getp c
respond' (Putq c) = \u -> case putchar' c u of Is _ -> Putp
But before you succumb:
unit_Result :: a -> Result a
unit_Result = Is
bind_Result :: Result a -> (a -> Result b) -> Result b
bind_Result (Is x) k = k x
Oh look - Result is one of those types...
The bang-pattern extension? So you can instead write:
respond'' :: Request -> OI -> Response
respond'' Getq = \u -> let !c = getchar u in Getp c
respond'' (Putq c) = \u -> let !z = putchar c u in Putp
As you can see, z isn't used anywhere - there is no need for it. This being Haskell, if it isn't needed, it normally isn't evaluated. For now, the bang-pattern extension modifies the evaluation of
z in order to prevent respond being rewritten as:
respond'' :: Request -> OI -> Response
respond'' Getq = \u -> let !c = getchar u in Getp c
respond'' (Putq c) = \u -> Putp
While you can use bang-patterns instead of seq, you'll be assuming that they appear in a future Haskell standard, and can still be used the same way - if either assumption is wrong, you might be looking at one very big clean-up job...
You could try all manner of ways to avoid using seq - you might even find one that you like; all well and good...but others might not. For me, the simplest way I've found to make this approach to I/O work is with seq - one that's actually sequential.
But maybe - after all that - you still want seq banished from Haskell. Perhaps you still don't understand I/O in Haskell. It could be that you're dismayed by what you've read here. Alternately, you may have seen or tried this all before, and know it doesn't work - darn...
If that's you, the corresponding language proposal[8] has a list of other articles and research papers I've found which describe or refer to other approaches - perhaps one (or more) of them will be more acceptable.
As noted by Owen Stephens[9]:
I/O is not a particularly active area of research, but new approaches are still being discovered,
iteratees being a case in point.
Who knows - the Haskell language could return to having a pure, fully-defined approach to I/O...and it could be you that finds it :-D
P.S: Why the name OI? Many years ago I was tinkering with arrows for performing I/O, labelling them OI a b out of expediency. More recently, I discovered a set of slides[10] describing another approach to I/O which used values of type OI a in a similar fashion to what I've been describing here. I've reused the name because of that similarity.
References:
[1] Sequential ordering of evaluation; Haskell Wiki.
[2] Ticket# 5129: "evaluate" optimized away; GHC bug tracker.
[3] Wearing the hair shirt: a retrospective on Haskell; Simon Peyton Jones.
[4] A History of Haskell: being lazy with class; Paul Hudak, John Hughes, Simon Peyton Jones and Philip Wadler.
[5] How to Declare an Imperative; Philip Wadler.
[6] The Clean homepage; Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
[7] Thread: State monads don't respect the monad laws in Haskell; Haskell mail archive.
[8] Partibles for composing monads; Haskell Wiki.
[9] Approaches to Functional I/O; Owen Stephens.
[10] Non-Imperative Functional Programming; Nobuo Yamashita.
Atravers 03:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)