IO inside
Haskell I/O can be a source of confusion and surprises for new Haskellers - if that's you, a good place to start is the Introduction to IO which can help you learn the basics (e.g. the syntax of I/O expressions) before continuing on.
While simple I/O code in Haskell looks very similar to its equivalents in imperative languages, attempts to write somewhat more complex code often result in a total mess. This is because Haskell I/O is really very different in how it actually works.
The following text is an attempt to explain the details of Haskell I/O implementations. This explanation should help you eventually learn all the smart I/O tips. Moreover, I've added a detailed explanation of various traps you might encounter along the way. After reading this text, you will be well on your way towards mastering I/O in Haskell.
Haskell is a pure language
Haskell is a pure language and even the I/O system can't break this purity.
Being pure means that the result of any function call is fully determined by
its arguments. Imperative routines like rand()
or
getchar()
in C, which return different results on each call, are
simply impossible to write in Haskell. Moreover, Haskell functions can't have
side effects, which means that they can't make any changes "outside the Haskell
program", like changing files, writing to the screen, printing, sending data
over the network, and so on. These two restrictions together mean that any
function call can be replaced by the result of a previous call with the same
parameters, and the language guarantees that all these rearrangements will
not change the program result! For example, the hyperbolic cosine function
cosh
can be defined in Haskell as:
cosh r = (exp r + 1/exp r)/2
using identical calls to exp
, which is another function. So
cosh
can instead call exp
once, and reuse the result:
cosh r = (x + 1/x)/2 where x = exp r
Let's compare this to C: optimizing C compilers try to guess which routines have no side effects and don't depend on mutable global variables. If this guess is wrong, an optimization can change the program's semantics! To avoid this kind of disaster, C optimizers are conservative in their guesses or require hints from the programmer about the purity of routines.
Compared to an optimizing C compiler, a Haskell compiler is a set of pure mathematical transformations. This results in much better high-level optimization facilities. Moreover, pure mathematical computations can be much more easily divided into several threads that may be executed in parallel, which is increasingly important in these days of multi-core CPUs. Finally, pure computations are less error-prone and easier to verify, which adds to Haskell's robustness and to the speed of program development using Haskell.
Haskell's purity allows the compiler to call only functions whose results are
really required to calculate the final value of a top-level definition (e.g.
main
) - this is called lazy evaluation. It's a great thing for
pure mathematical computations, but how about I/O actions? Something like
putStrLn "Press any key to begin formatting"
can't return any meaningful result value, so how can we ensure that the compiler will not omit or reorder its execution? And in general: How we can work with stateful algorithms and side effects in an entirely lazy language? This question has had many different solutions proposed while Haskell was developed (see History of Haskell), with one solution eventually making its way into the current standard.
I/O in Haskell, simplified
But why was the monadic interface the preferred solution? Because it neatly
abstracts away boring implementation details. For I/O, one of those details
is change - even the humble getChar
has to modify something
to obtain the next character of input:
getChar :: RealWorld -> (Char, RealWorld)
getChar = \ world0 -> let ... in (c, world1)
If it didn't:
getChar :: RealWorld -> Char
getChar = \ world -> let ... in c
then it would always return the exact same character!
However, making a series of changes in this way is tedious and error-prone:
getLine :: RealWorld -> ([Char], RealWorld)
getLine world0 = let (c, world1) = getChar world0 in
if c == '\n'
then
([], world1)
else
let (l, world2) = getLine world1 in
(c:l, world2)
All those "worlds" and you having to ensure that each one is used correctly...or you could write this instead:
getChar :: IO Char
getLine :: IO [Char]
getLine = getChar >>= \ c ->
if c == '\n'
then
return []
else
getLine >>= \ l ->
return (c:l)
An unlikely type
Looking again at those more-verbose type signatures:
getChar :: RealWorld -> (Char, RealWorld)
getLine :: RealWorld -> ([Char], RealWorld)
you could be excused for thinking that getChar
and
getLine
were functions - they're not!
Remember, Haskell functions can't have side effects. That means they can't make
any changes "outside the Haskell program". Therefore getChar
and
getLine
would be incapable of I/O if they were functions!
But why are getChar
and getLine
different? To help us
find out, here are some ordinary Haskell types:
data () = () -- the unit type
data Bool = False | True -- the boolean type
data Char -- the character type (usually abstract)
data Int -- the type of hardware-precision integers (similarly abstract)
Now for some Haskell functions:
\ () -> 'a' :: () -> Char
\ ~n@97 -> 'a' :: Int -> Char
\ n -> ('a', n+1) :: Int -> (Char, Int)
\ n -> (['a'], n+1) :: Int -> ([Char], Int)
So if these cannot be Haskell functions:
getChar :: RealWorld -> (Char, RealWorld)
getLine :: RealWorld -> ([Char], RealWorld)
then the difference is RealWorld
: it simply cannot be an ordinary
Haskell type.
This is why getChar
and getLine
are usually known as
I/O actions: to avoid confusion with functions in Haskell.
Running with the RealWorld
Warning: The following story about I/O is incorrect in that it cannot actually explain some important aspects of I/O (including interaction and concurrency). However, some people find it useful to begin developing an understanding.
We start with some definitions:
data RealWorld -- extremely abstract!
newtype IO a = Act (RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld))
From our definition of the IO
type, we can see that the
RealWorld
is used like the baton passed in a relay race. When an
I/O action is called, it passes the RealWorld
it received as a
parameter. All I/O actions have similar types involving RealWorld
as a parameter and result.
So, main
just has type IO ()
, getChar
has type IO Char
and so
on. You can think of the type IO Char
as meaning "take the current RealWorld
, do something to it, and
return a Char
and a (possibly changed) RealWorld
".
Let's look at main
calling getChar
two times:
getChar :: IO Char
main :: IO ()
main = getChar >>= \a ->
getChar >>= \b ->
return ()
Defining the IO
type as a newtype
declaration now
allows us to simplify main
to:
getChar :: RealWorld -> (Char, RealWorld)
main :: RealWorld -> ((), RealWorld)
main world0 = let (a, world1) = getChar world0
(b, world2) = getChar world1
in ((), world2)
Look at this closely: main
passes the "world" it received to the
first getChar
. This getChar
returns another "world"
that gets used in the next call. Finally, main
returns the "world"
it got from the second getChar
.
- Is it possible here to omit any call of
getChar
if theChar
it read is not used? No: we need to return the "world" that is the result of the secondgetChar
and this in turn requires the "world" returned from the firstgetChar
.
- Is it possible to reorder the
getChar
calls? No: the secondgetChar
can't be called before the first one because it uses the "world" returned from the first call.
- Is it possible to duplicate calls? In Haskell semantics - yes, but real compilers never duplicate work in such simple cases (otherwise, the programs generated will not have any speed guarantees).
As we already said, each successive "world" is used like a baton which gets
passed between all actions called by main
in strict order. Inside
each action called, the "world" is used in the same way. Overall, in order to
obtain the final "world" to be returned from main
, we should
perform each I/O action that is called from main
, directly or
indirectly. This means that each action inserted in the chain will be performed
just at the moment (relative to the other I/O actions) when we intended it to
be called. Let's consider the following program:
main = do a <- ask "What is your name?"
b <- ask "How old are you?"
return ()
ask s = do putStr s
readLn
Now you have enough knowledge to rewrite it in a low-level way and check that each operation that should be performed will really be performed with the arguments it should have and in the order we expect.
But what about conditional execution? No problem. Let's define the well-known
when
operation:
when :: Bool -> IO () -> IO ()
when condition action =
if condition
then action
else return ()
Now to simplify it:
when condition action world =
if condition
then action world
else ((), world)
As you can see, we can easily include or exclude from the execution chain I/O
actions depending on the data values. If condition
will be
False
on the call of when
, action
will
never be called because real Haskell compilers, again, never call functions
whose results are not required to calculate the final result (i.e. here,
the final "world" of main
).
Loops and more complex control structures can be implemented in the same way. Try it as an exercise!
Finally, you may want to know how much passing these "worlds" around the
program costs. It's free! The "worlds" exist solely for the compiler while
it analyzes and optimizes the code - when it gets to assembly code generation,
it recognises that RealWorld
isn't an ordinary Haskell type and
those "worlds" aren't ordinary Haskell expressions. That allows the compiler
to omit both from the final generated code: they're not needed any more!
(>>=)
and do
notation
All beginners (including me) start by thinking that do
is some
super-awesome statement that executes I/O actions. That's wrong - do
is just syntactic sugar that simplifies the writing of definitions that use I/O
(and also other monads, but that's beyond the scope of this manual). do
notation eventually gets translated to a series of I/O actions passing "worlds"
around like we've manually written above. This simplifies the gluing of several
I/O actions together. You don't need to use do
for just one
action; for example,
main = do putStr "Hello!"
is desugared to:
main = putStr "Hello!"
Let's examine how to desugar a do
-expression with multiple actions
in the following example:
main = do putStr "What is your name?"
putStr "How old are you?"
putStr "Nice day!"
The do
-expression here just joins several I/O actions that should
be performed sequentially. It's translated to sequential applications of one
of the so-called "binding operators", namely (>>)
:
main = (putStr "What is your name?")
>> ( (putStr "How old are you?")
>> (putStr "Nice day!")
)
Defining (>>)
looks easy:
(>>) :: IO a -> IO b -> IO b
action1 >> action2 = action1 >>= \_ -> action2
But if we simplify this binding operator, we can see it combining its two I/O actions, executing them sequentially by passing the "world" between them:
(action1 >> action2) world0 =
let (a, world1) = action1 world0 -- note: a not used
(b, world2) = action2 world1
in (b, world2)
If defining operators this way looks strange to you, read this definition as follows:
action1 >> action2 = action
where
action world0 = let (a, world1) = action1 world0
(b, world2) = action2 world1
in (b, world2)
Now you can substitute the definition of (>>)
at the places of
its usage and check that program constructed by the do
desugaring
is actually the same as we could write by manipulating "worlds" manually.
A more complex example involves the binding of variables using <-
:
main = do a <- readLn
print a
This code is desugared into:
main = readLn
>>= (\a -> print a)
where (>>=)
corresponds to the bind
operation in
our miniature I/O system.
As you should remember, the (>>)
binding operator silently ignores
the value of its first action and returns as an overall result the result of
its second action only. On the other hand, the (>>=)
binding
operator (note the extra =
at the end) allows us to use the result
of its first action - it gets passed as an additional parameter to the second
one! Let's simplify its definition:
(action >>= reaction) world0 =
let (a, world1) = action world0
(b, world2) = reaction a world1
in (b, world2)
- What does the type of
reaction
- namelya -> IO b
- mean? By substituting theIO
definition, we geta -> RealWorld -> (b, RealWorld)
. This means thatreaction
actually has two parameters - the typea
actually used inside it, and the "world" used for sequencing of I/O actions. That's always the case - any I/O definition has one more parameter compared to what you see in its type signature. This parameter is hidden inside the definition of theIO
type:
newtype IO a = Act (RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld))
- You can use these
(>>)
and(>>=)
operations to simplify your program. For example, in the code above we don't need to introduce the variable, because the result ofreadLn
can be send directly toprint
:
main = readLn >>= print
As you see, the notation:
do x <- action1
action2
where action1
has type IO a
and action2
has type IO b
, translates
into:
action1 >>= (\x -> action2)
where the second argument of (>>=)
has the type
a -> IO b
. It's the way
the <-
binding is processed - the name on the left-hand side of
<-
just becomes a parameter of subsequent operations represented
as one large I/O action. Note also that if action1
has type
IO a
then x
will just have type a
; you can think of the effect of <-
as "unpacking" the I/O value of action1
into x
.
Note also that <-
is not a true operator; it's pure syntax, just
like do
itself. Its meaning results only from the way it gets
desugared.
Look at the next example:
main = do putStr "What is your name?"
a <- readLn
putStr "How old are you?"
b <- readLn
print (a,b)
This code is desugared into:
main = putStr "What is your name?"
>> readLn
>>= \a -> putStr "How old are you?"
>> readLn
>>= \b -> print (a,b)
I omitted the parentheses here; both the (>>)
and the
(>>=)
operators are left-associative, but lambda-bindings
always stretches as far to the right as possible, which means that the
a
and b
bindings introduced here are valid for all
remaining actions. As an exercise, add the parentheses yourself and translate
this definition into the low-level code that explicitly passes "worlds". I
think it should be enough to help you finally realize how the do
translation and binding operators work.
Oh, no! I forgot the third monadic operator: return
. After it is
simplified, we can see it does very little! It just combines its two parameters -
the value passed and the required "world" - and immediately returns both
of them:
return a world0 = (a, world0)
How about translating a simple example of return
usage? Say,
main = do a <- readLn
return (a*2)
Programmers with an imperative language background often think that
return
in Haskell, as in other languages, immediately returns
from the I/O definition. As you can see in its definition (and even just from
its type!), such an assumption is totally wrong. The only purpose of using
return
is to "lift" some value (of type a
) into the
result of a whole action (of type IO a
) and therefore it should
generally be used only as the last executed action of some I/O sequence. For
example try to translate the following definition into the corresponding
low-level code:
main = do a <- readLn
when (a>=0) $ do
return ()
print "a is negative"
and you will realize that the print
call is executed even for
non-negative values of a
. If you need to escape from the middle
of an I/O definition, you can use an if
expression:
main = do a <- readLn
if (a>=0)
then return ()
else print "a is negative"
Moreover, Haskell layout rules allow us to use the following layout:
main = do a <- readLn
if (a>=0) then return ()
else do
print "a is negative"
...
that may be useful for escaping from the middle of a longish
do
-expression.
Last exercise: implement a function liftM
that lifts operations
on plain values to the operations on monadic ones. Its type signature:
liftM :: (a -> b) -> (IO a -> IO b)
If that's too hard for you, start with the following high-level definition and rewrite it in low-level fashion:
liftM f action = do x <- action
return (f x)
Mutable data (references, arrays, hash tables...)
As you should know, every name in Haskell is bound to one fixed (immutable) value. This greatly simplifies understanding algorithms and code optimization, but it's inappropriate in some cases. As we all know, there are plenty of algorithms that are simpler to implement in terms of updatable variables, arrays and so on. This means that the value associated with a variable, for example, can be different at different execution points, so reading its value can't be considered as a pure function. Imagine, for example, the following code:
main = do let a0 = readVariable varA
_ = writeVariable varA 1
a1 = readVariable varA
print (a0, a1)
Does this look strange?
- The two calls to
readVariable
look the same, so the compiler can just reuse the value returned by the first call. - The result of the
writeVariable
call isn't used so the compiler can (and will!) omit this call completely. - These three calls may be rearranged in any order because they appear to be independent of each other.
This is obviously not what was intended. What's the solution? You already know this - use I/O actions! Doing that guarantees:
- the result of the "same" action (such as
readVariable varA
) will not be reused - each action will have to be executed
- the execution order will be retained as written
So, the code above really should be written as:
import Data.IORef
main = do varA <- newIORef 0 -- Create and initialize a new variable
a0 <- readIORef varA
writeIORef varA 1
a1 <- readIORef varA
print (a0, a1)
Here, varA
has the type IORef Int
which means "a variable (reference) in the I/O monad holding a value of type
Int
". newIORef
creates a new variable (reference)
and returns it, and then read/write actions use this reference. The value
returned by the readIORef varA
action depends not only on the variable involved but also on the moment this
operation is performed so it can return different values on each call.
Arrays, hash tables and any other mutable data structures are defined in the same way - for each of them, there's an operation that creates new "mutable values" and returns a reference to it. Then value-specific read and write operations in the I/O monad are used. The following code shows an example using mutable arrays:
import Data.Array.IO
main = do arr <- newArray (1,10) 37 :: IO (IOArray Int Int)
a <- readArray arr 1
writeArray arr 1 64
b <- readArray arr 1
print (a, b)
Here, an array of 10 elements with 37 as the initial value at each location is
created. After reading the value of the first element (index 1) into
a
this element's value is changed to 64 and then read again into
b
. As you can see by executing this code, a
will be
set to 37 and b
to 64.
Other state-dependent operations are also often implemented with I/O actions.
For example, a random number generator should return a different value on each
call. It looks natural to give it a type involving IO
:
rand :: IO Int
Moreover, when you import a C routine you should be careful - if this routine
is impure, i.e. its result depends on something "outside the Haskell program"
(file system, memory contents, its own static
internal state and
so on), you should give it an IO
type. Otherwise, the compiler
can "optimize" repetitive calls to the definition with the same parameters!
For example, we can write a non-IO
type for:
foreign import ccall
sin :: Double -> Double
because the result of sin
depends only on its argument, but
foreign import ccall
tell :: Int -> IO Int
If you will declare tell
as a pure function (without
IO
) then you may get the same position on each call!
Encapsulated mutable data: ST
If you're going to be doing things like sending text to a screen or reading
data from a scanner, IO
is the type to start with - you can then
customise existing I/O operations or add new ones as you see fit. But what if
that shiny-new (or classic) algorithm you're working on really only needs
mutable state - then having to drag that IO
type from
main
all the way through to wherever you're implementing the
algorithm can get quite irritating.
Fortunately there is a better way! One that remains totally pure and yet allows the use of references, arrays, and so on - and it's done using, you guessed it, Haskell's versatile type system (and one extension).
Remember our definition of IO
?
newtype IO a = Act (RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld))
Well, the new ST
type makes just one change:
newtype ST s a = Act' (s -> (a, s))
If we wanted to, we could use ST
to define IO
:
type IO a = ST RealWorld a
Let's add some extra definitions:
newSTRef :: a -> ST s (STRef s a) -- these are
readSTRef :: STRef s a -> ST s a -- usually
writeSTRef :: STRef s a -> a -> ST s () -- primitive
newSTArray :: Ix i => (i, i) -> ST s (STArray s i e) -- also usually primitive
⋮
instance Monad (ST s) where
m >>= k = let actual' (Act' m) = m in
Act' $ \s1 -> case actual' m s1 of (x, s2) -> actual' (k x) s2
return x = Act' $ \s1 -> (x, s1)
...that's right - this new ST
type is also monadic!
So what's the big difference between the ST
and IO
types? In one word - runST
:
runST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a
Yes - it has a very unusual type. But that type allows you to run your stateful computation as if it was a pure definition!
The s
type variable in ST
is the type of the local
state. Moreover, all the fun mutable stuff available for ST
is
quantified over s
:
newSTRef :: a -> ST s (STRef s a)
newArray_ :: Ix i => (i, i) -> ST s (STArray s i e)
So why does runST
have such a funky type? Let's see what would
happen if we wrote
makeSTRef :: a -> STRef s a
makeSTRef a = runST (newSTRef a)
This fails, because newSTRef a
doesn't work for all state types
s
- it only works for the s
from the return type
STRef s a
.
This is all sort of wacky, but the result is that you can only run an
ST
computation where the output type is functionally pure, and
makes no references to the internal mutable state of the computation. In
exchange for that, there's no access to I/O operations like writing to or
reading from the console. The monadic ST
type only has references,
arrays, and such that are useful for performing pure computations.
Just like RealWorld
, the state type doesn't actually mean
anything. We never have an actual value of type s
, for instance.
It's just a way of getting the type system to do the work of ensuring purity
is preserved - it's being used like another baton.
On the inside runST
uses that newly-made baton to run the
computation. When it finishes runST
separates the resulting
value from the final baton. This value is then returned by runST
.
Because the internal implementations of IO
and ST
are so similar, there's this function:
stToIO :: ST RealWorld a -> IO a
The difference is that ST
uses the type system to forbid unsafe
behavior like extracting mutable objects from their safe ST
wrapping, but allowing purely functional outputs to be performed with all the
handy access to mutable references and arrays.
For example, here's a particularly convoluted way to compute the integer that comes after zero:
oneST :: ST s Integer -- note that this works correctly for any s
oneST = do var <- newSTRef 0
modifySTRef var (+1)
readSTRef var
one :: Int
one = runST oneST
I/O actions as values
By this point you should understand why it's impossible to use I/O actions
inside non-I/O (pure) functions. Such functions just don't get a "baton";
they don't have any "world" to pass to an I/O action. The RealWorld
type is an abstract datatype, so pure functions also can't construct "worlds"
by themselves, and it's a strict type, so undefined
also can't be
used. So, the prohibition of using I/O actions inside pure functions is
maintained by the type system (as it usually is in Haskell).
But while pure code can't execute I/O actions, it can work with them as with any other functional values - they can be stored in data structures, passed as parameters, returned as results, collected in lists, and partially applied. But an I/O action will remain a functional value because we don't have a "world" to apply it to.
In order to execute the I/O action we need to apply it to some "world".
That can be done only inside other I/O actions, in their "actions chains". And
real execution of this action will take place only when this action is called
as part of the process of obtaining the final "world" for main
.
Look at this partially-simplified example:
main world0 = let skip2chars = getChar >> getChar >> return () -- NB: not simplified!
(answer, world2) = skip2chars world1
((), world1) = putStr "Press two keys" world0
in ((), world2)
Here we first write a binding for skip2chars
, then another binding
involving putStr
. But what's the execution order? It's not defined
by the order of the let
bindings, it's defined by the order of
processing "worlds"! You can arbitrarily reorder those local bindings - the
execution order will be defined by the data dependency with respect to the
"worlds" that get passed around. Let's see what this main
action
would have looked like in the do
notation:
main = do let skip2chars = getChar >> getChar >> return ()
putStr "Press two keys"
skip2chars
return ()
As you can see, we've eliminated two of the let
bindings and left
only the one defining skip2chars
. The non-let
actions
are executed in the exact order in which they're written, because they pass the
"world" from action to action as we described above. Thus, this version of the
function is much easier to understand because we don't have to mentally figure
out the data dependency of the "world".
Moreover, I/O actions like skip2chars
can't be executed directly
because they are functions with a RealWorld
parameter. To execute
them, we need to supply the RealWorld
parameter, i.e. insert them
in the main
chain, placing them in some do
sequence
executed from main
(either directly in the main
action, or indirectly in an I/O function called from main
). Until
that's done, they will remain like any function, in partially evaluated form.
And we can work with I/O actions as with any other functions - bind them to
names (as we did above), save them in data structures, pass them as function
parameters and return them as results - and they won't be performed until you
give them that inaugural RealWorld
argument!
Example: a list of I/O actions
Let's try defining a list of I/O actions:
ioActions :: [IO ()]
ioActions = [(print "Hello!"),
(putStr "just kidding"),
(getChar >> return ())
]
I used additional parentheses around each action, although they aren't really required. If you still can't believe that these actions won't be executed immediately, just recall the simplifed type of this list:
ioActions :: [RealWorld -> ((), RealWorld)]
Well, now we want to execute some of these actions. No problem, just insert
them into the main
chain:
main = do head ioActions
ioActions !! 1
last ioActions
Looks strange, right? Really, any I/O action that you write in a
do
-expression (or use as a parameter for the
(>>)
/(>>=)
operators) is an expression returning a
result of type IO a
for
some type a
. Typically, you use some function that has the type
x -> y -> ... -> IO a
and provide all the x
, y
, etc. parameters. But you're
not limited to this standard scenario - don't forget that Haskell is a
functional language and you're free to compute the functional value required
(recall that IO a
is
really a function type) in any possible way. Here we just extracted several
functions from the list - no problem. This functional value can also be
constructed on-the-fly, as we've done in the previous example - that's also OK.
Want to see this functional value passed as a parameter? Just look at the
definition of when
. Hey, we can buy, sell, and rent these I/O
actions just like we can with any other functional values! For example, let's
define a function that executes all the I/O actions in the list:
sequence_ :: [IO a] -> IO ()
sequence_ [] = return ()
sequence_ (x:xs) = do x
sequence_ xs
No mirrors or smoke - we just extract I/O actions from the list and insert
them into a chain of I/O operations that should be performed one after another
(in the same order that they occurred in the list) to obtain the final "world"
of the entire sequence_
call.
With the help of sequence_
, we can rewrite our last main
action as:
main = sequence_ ioActions
Haskell's ability to work with I/O actions as with any other (functional and
non-functional) values allows us to define control structures of arbitrary
complexity. Try, for example, to define a control structure that repeats an
action until it returns the False
result:
while :: IO Bool -> IO ()
while action = ???
Most programming languages don't allow you to define control structures at all, and those that do often require you to use a macro-expansion system. In Haskell, control structures are just trivial functions anyone can write.
Example: returning an I/O action as a result
How about returning an I/O action as the result of a function? Well, we've done this for each I/O definition - they all return I/O actions that need a "world" to be performed. While we usually just execute them as part of a higher-level I/O definition, it's also possible to just collect them without actual execution:
main = do let a = sequence ioActions
b = when True getChar
c = getChar >> getChar >> return ()
putStr "These let-bindings are not executed!"
These assigned I/O actions can be used as parameters to other definitions, or
written to global variables, or processed in some other way, or just executed
later, as we did in the example with skip2chars
.
But how about returning a parameterized I/O action from an I/O definition? Here's a definition that returns the i'th byte from a file represented as a Handle:
readi h i = do hSeek h AbsoluteSeek i
hGetChar h
So far so good. But how about a definition that returns the i'th byte of a file with a given name without reopening it each time?
readfilei :: String -> IO (Integer -> IO Char)
readfilei name = do h <- openFile name ReadMode
return (readi h)
As you can see, it's an I/O definition that opens a file and returns...an I/O
action that will read the specified byte. But we can go further and include
the readi
body in readfilei
:
readfilei name = do h <- openFile name ReadMode
let readi h i = do hSeek h AbsoluteSeek i
hGetChar h
return (readi h)
That's a little better. But why do we add h
as a parameter to
readi
if it can be obtained from the environment where readi
is now defined? An even shorter version is this:
readfilei name = do h <- openFile name ReadMode
let readi i = do hSeek h AbsoluteSeek i
hGetChar h
return readi
What have we done here? We've build a parameterized I/O action involving local
names inside readfilei
and returned it as the result. Now it can
be used in the following way:
main = do myfile <- readfilei "test"
a <- myfile 0
b <- myfile 1
print (a,b)
This way of using I/O actions is very typical for Haskell programs - you just construct one or more I/O actions that you need, with or without parameters, possibly involving the parameters that your "constructor" received, and return them to the caller. Then these I/O actions can be used in the rest of the program without any knowledge about your internal implementation strategy. One thing this can be used for is to partially emulate the OOP (or more precisely, the ADT) programming paradigm.
Example: a memory allocator generator
As an example, one of my programs has a module which is a memory suballocator. It receives the address and size of a large memory block and returns two specialised I/O operations - one to allocate a subblock of a given size and the other to free the allocated subblock:
memoryAllocator :: Ptr a -> Int -> IO (Int -> IO (Ptr b),
Ptr c -> IO ())
memoryAllocator buf size = do ......
let alloc size = do ...
...
free ptr = do ...
...
return (alloc, free)
How this is implemented? alloc
and free
work with
references created inside the memoryAllocator
definition. Because
the creation of these references is a part of the memoryAllocator
I/O-action chain, a new independent set of references will be created for each
memory block for which memoryAllocator
is called:
memoryAllocator buf size =
do start <- newIORef buf
end <- newIORef (buf `plusPtr` size)
...
These two references are read and written in the alloc
and
free
definitions (we'll implement a very simple memory allocator
for this example):
...
let alloc size = do addr <- readIORef start
writeIORef start (addr `plusPtr` size)
return addr
let free ptr = do writeIORef start ptr
What we've defined here is just a pair of closures that use state available at the moment of their definition. As you can see, it's as easy as in any other functional language, despite Haskell's lack of direct support for impure routines.
The following example uses the operations returned by memoryAllocator
,
to simultaneously allocate/free blocks in two independent memory buffers:
main = do buf1 <- mallocBytes (2^16)
buf2 <- mallocBytes (2^20)
(alloc1, free1) <- memoryAllocator buf1 (2^16)
(alloc2, free2) <- memoryAllocator buf2 (2^20)
ptr11 <- alloc1 100
ptr21 <- alloc2 1000
free1 ptr11
free2 ptr21
ptr12 <- alloc1 100
ptr22 <- alloc2 1000
Example: emulating OOP with record types
Let's implement the classical OOP example: drawing figures. There are figures of different types: circles, rectangles and so on. The task is to create a heterogeneous list of figures. All figures in this list should support the same set of operations: draw, move and so on. We will define these operations using I/O actions. Instead of a "class" let's define a structure containing implementations of all the operations required:
data Figure = Figure { draw :: IO (),
move :: Displacement -> IO ()
}
type Displacement = (Int, Int) -- horizontal and vertical displacement in points
The constructor of each figure's type should just return a Figure
record:
circle :: Point -> Radius -> IO Figure
rectangle :: Point -> Point -> IO Figure
type Point = (Int, Int) -- point coordinates
type Radius = Int -- circle radius in points
We will "draw" figures by just printing their current parameters. Let's start
with a simplified implementation of the circle
and rectangle
constructors, without actual move
support:
circle center radius = do
let description = " Circle at "++show center++" with radius "++show radius
return $ Figure { draw = putStrLn description }
rectangle from to = do
let description = " Rectangle "++show from++"-"++show to)
return $ Figure { draw = putStrLn description }
As you see, each constructor just returns a fixed draw
operation
that prints parameters with which the concrete figure was created. Let's test
it:
drawAll :: [Figure] -> IO ()
drawAll figures = do putStrLn "Drawing figures:"
mapM_ draw figures
main = do figures <- sequence [circle (10,10) 5,
circle (20,20) 3,
rectangle (10,10) (20,20),
rectangle (15,15) (40,40)]
drawAll figures
Now let's define "full-featured" figures that can actually be moved around. In
order to achieve this, we should provide each figure with a mutable variable
that holds each figure's current screen location. The type of this variable
will be IORef Point
. This
variable should be created in the figure constructor and manipulated in I/O
operations (closures) enclosed in the Figure
record:
circle center radius = do
centerVar <- newIORef center
let drawF = do center <- readIORef centerVar
putStrLn (" Circle at "++show center
++" with radius "++show radius)
let moveF (addX,addY) = do (x,y) <- readIORef centerVar
writeIORef centerVar (x+addX, y+addY)
return $ Figure { draw=drawF, move=moveF }
rectangle from to = do
fromVar <- newIORef from
toVar <- newIORef to
let drawF = do from <- readIORef fromVar
to <- readIORef toVar
putStrLn (" Rectangle "++show from++"-"++show to)
let moveF (addX,addY) = do (fromX,fromY) <- readIORef fromVar
(toX,toY) <- readIORef toVar
writeIORef fromVar (fromX+addX, fromY+addY)
writeIORef toVar (toX+addX, toY+addY)
return $ Figure { draw=drawF, move=moveF }
Now we can test the code which moves figures around:
main = do figures <- sequence [circle (10,10) 5,
rectangle (10,10) (20,20)]
drawAll figures
mapM_ (\fig -> move fig (10,10)) figures
drawAll figures
It's important to realize that we are not limited to including only I/O actions
in a record that's intended to simulate a C++/Java-style interface. The record
can also include values, IORef
s, pure functions - in short, any
type of data. For example, we can easily add to the Figure
interface fields for area and origin:
data Figure = Figure { draw :: IO (),
move :: Displacement -> IO (),
area :: Double,
origin :: IORef Point
}
Exception handling (under development)
Although Haskell provides a set of exception raising/handling features comparable to those in popular OOP languages (C++, Java, C#), this part of the language receives much less attention. This is for two reasons:
- you just don't need to worry as much about them - most of the time it just works "behind the scenes".
- Haskell, lacking OOP-style inheritance, doesn't allow the programmer to easily subclass exception types, therefore limiting the flexibility of exception handling.
The Haskell RTS raises more exceptions than traditional languages - pattern
match failures, calls with invalid arguments (such as
head []
) and computations
whose results depend on special values undefined
and
error "...."
all raise
their own exceptions:
- example 1:
main = print (f 2) f 0 = "zero" f 1 = "one"
- example 2:
main = print (head [])
- example 3:
main = print (1 + (error "Value that wasn't initialized or cannot be computed"))
This allows the writing of programs in a much more error-prone way.
Interfacing with C/C++ and foreign libraries (under development)
While Haskell is great at algorithm development, speed isn't its best side. We can combine the best of both languages, though, by writing speed-critical parts of program in C and the rest in Haskell. We just need a way to call C routines from Haskell and vice versa, and to marshal data between the two languages.
We also need to interact with C to use Windows/Linux APIs, linking to various libraries and DLLs. Even interfacing with other languages often requires going through C, which acts as a "common denominator". Chapter 8 of the Haskell 2010 report provides a complete description of interfacing with C.
We will learn to use the FFI via a series of examples. These examples include C/C++ code, so they need C/C++ compilers to be installed, the same will be true if you need to include code written in C/C++ in your program (C/C++ compilers are not required when you just need to link with existing libraries providing APIs with C calling convention). On Unix (and Mac OS?) systems, the system-wide default C/C++ compiler is typically used by GHC installation. On Windows, no default compilers exist, so GHC is typically shipped with a C compiler, and you may find on the download page a GHC distribution bundled with C and C++ compilers. Alternatively, you may find and install a GCC/MinGW version compatible with your GHC installation.
If you need to make your C/C++ code as fast as possible, you may compile your code by Intel compilers instead of GCC. However, these compilers are not free, moreover on Windows, code compiled by Intel compilers may not interact correctly with GHC-compiled code, unless one of them is put into DLLs (due to object file incompatibility).
- C->Haskell
- A lightweight tool for implementing access to C libraries from Haskell.
- HSFFIG
- The Haskell FFI Binding Modules Generator (HSFFIG) is a tool that takes a C library header (".h") and generates Haskell Foreign Function Interface import declarations for items (functions, structures, etc.) the header defines.
- MissingPy
- MissingPy is really two libraries in one. At its lowest level, MissingPy is a library designed to make it easy to call into Python from Haskell. It provides full support for interpreting arbitrary Python code, interfacing with a good part of the Python/C API, and handling Python objects. It also provides tools for converting between Python objects and their Haskell equivalents. Memory management is handled for you, and Python exceptions get mapped to Haskell
Dynamic
exceptions. At a higher level, MissingPy contains Haskell interfaces to some Python modules.
- HsLua
- A Haskell interface to the Lua scripting language
Foreign calls
We begin by learning how to call C routines from Haskell and Haskell definitions from C. The first example consists of three files:
main.hs:
{-# LANGUAGE ForeignFunctionInterface #-}
main = do print "Hello from main"
c_routine
haskell_definition = print "Hello from haskell_definition"
foreign import ccall safe "prototypes.h"
c_routine :: IO ()
foreign export ccall
haskell_definition :: IO ()
vile.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "prototypes.h"
void c_routine (void)
{
printf("Hello from c_routine\n");
haskell_definition();
}
prototypes.h:
extern void c_routine (void);
extern void haskell_definition (void);
It may be compiled and linked in one step by ghc:
ghc --make main.hs vile.c
Or, you may compile C module(s) separately and link in ".o" files (this may be
preferable if you use make
and don't want to recompile unchanged
sources; ghc's --make
option provides smart recompilation only for
".hs" files):
ghc -c vile.c ghc --make main.hs vile.o
You may use gcc/g++ directly to compile your C/C++ files but I recommend to do
linking via ghc because it adds a lot of libraries required for execution of
Haskell code. For the same reason, even if main
in your program is
written in C/C++, I recommend calling it from the Haskell action main
-
otherwise you'll have to explicitly init/shutdown the GHC RTS (run-time system).
We use the foreign import
declaration to import foreign routines
into Haskell, and foreign export
to export Haskell definitions
"outside" for imperative languages to use. Note that import
creates a new Haskell symbol (from the external one), while export
uses a Haskell symbol previously defined. Technically speaking, both types of
declarations create a wrapper that converts the names and calling conventions
from C to Haskell or vice versa.
All about the foreign
declaration
The ccall
specifier in foreign declarations means the use of the C
(not C++ !) calling convention. This means that if you want to write the
external routine in C++ (instead of C) you should add export "C"
specification to its declaration - otherwise you'll get linking errors. Let's
rewrite our first example to use C++ instead of C:
prototypes.h:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
extern void c_routine (void);
extern void haskell_definition (void);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Compile it via:
ghc --make main.hs vile.cpp
where "vile.cpp" is just a renamed copy of "vile.c" from the first example.
Note that the new "prototypes.h" is written to allow compiling it both as C and
C++ code. When it's included from "vile.cpp", it's compiled as C++ code. When
GHC compiles "main.hs" via the C compiler (enabled by the -fvia-C
option), it also includes "prototypes.h" but compiles it in C mode. It's why
you need to specify ".h" files in foreign
declarations - depending
on which Haskell compiler you use, these files may be included to check
consistency of C and Haskell declarations.
The quoted part of the foreign declaration may also be used to give the import or export another name - for example,
foreign import ccall safe "prototypes.h CRoutine"
c_routine :: IO ()
foreign export ccall "HaskellDefinition"
haskell_definition :: IO ()
specifies that:
- the C routine called
CRoutine
will become known asc_routine
in Haskell, - while the Haskell definition
haskell_definition
will be known asHaskellDefinition
in C.
It's required when the C name doesn't conform to Haskell naming requirements.
Although the Haskell FFI standard tells about many other calling conventions in
addition to ccall
(e.g. cplusplus
, jvm
,
net
) current Haskell implementations support only ccall
and stdcall
. The latter, also called the "Pascal" calling
convention, is used to interface with WinAPI:
foreign import stdcall unsafe "windows.h SetFileApisToOEM"
setFileApisToOEM :: IO ()
And finally, about the safe
/unsafe
specifier: a C
routine imported with the unsafe
keyword is called directly and
the Haskell runtime is stopped while the C routine is executed (when there are
several OS threads executing the Haskell program, only the current OS thread is
delayed). This call doesn't allow recursively entering back into Haskell by
calling any Haskell definition - the Haskell RTS is just not prepared for such
an event. However, unsafe
calls are as quick as calls in C. It's
ideal for "momentary" calls that quickly return back to the caller.
When safe
is specified, the C routine is called in a safe
environment - the Haskell execution context is saved, so it's possible to call
back to Haskell and, if the C call takes a long time, another OS thread may be
started to execute Haskell code (of course, in threads other than the one that
called the C code). This has its own price, though - around 1000 CPU ticks per
call.
You can read more about interaction between FFI calls and Haskell concurrency in [7].
Marshalling simple types
Calling by itself is relatively easy; the real problem of interfacing languages
with different data models is passing data between them. In this case, there is
no guarantee that Haskell's Int
is represented in memory the same
way as C's int
, nor Haskell's Double
the same as C's
double
and so on. While on some platforms they are the same
and you can write throw-away programs relying on these, the goal of portability
requires you to declare foreign imports and exports using special types
described in the FFI standard, which are guaranteed to correspond to C types.
These are:
import Foreign.C.Types ( -- equivalent to the following C type:
CChar, CUChar, -- char/unsigned char
CShort, CUShort, -- short/unsigned short
CInt, CUInt, CLong, CULong, -- int/unsigned/long/unsigned long
CFloat, CDouble...) -- float/double
Now we can typefully import and export to and from C and Haskell:
foreign import ccall unsafe "math.h"
c_sin :: CDouble -> CDouble
Note that C routines which behave like pure functions (those whose
results depend only on their arguments) are imported without IO
in their return type. The const
specifier in C is not reflected
in Haskell types, so appropriate compiler checks are not performed.
All these numeric types are instances of the same classes as their Haskell
cousins (Ord
, Num
, Show
and so on), so
you may perform calculations on these data directly. Alternatively, you may
convert them to native Haskell types. It's very typical to write simple
wrappers around foreign imports and exports just to provide interfaces having
native Haskell types:
-- |Type-conversion wrapper around c_sin
sin :: Double -> Double
sin = fromRational . c_sin . toRational
Memory management
Marshalling strings
import Foreign.C.String ( -- representation of strings in C
CString, -- = Ptr CChar
CStringLen) -- = (Ptr CChar, Int)
foreign import ccall unsafe "string.h"
c_strlen :: CString -> IO CSize -- CSize defined in Foreign.C.Types and is equal to size_t
-- |Type-conversion wrapper around c_strlen
strlen :: String -> Int
strlen = ....
Marshalling composite types
A C array may be manipulated in Haskell as StorableArray.
There is no built-in support for marshalling C structures and using C constants in Haskell. These are implemented in the c2hs preprocessor, though.
Binary marshalling (serializing) of data structures of any complexity is implemented in the library module "Binary".
Dynamic calls
DLLs
because i don't have experience of using DLLs, can someone write into this section? Ultimately, we need to consider the following tasks:
- using DLLs of 3rd-party libraries (such as ziplib)
- putting your own C code into a DLL to use in Haskell
- putting Haskell code into a DLL which may be called from C code
The dark side of the I/O monad
Unless you are a systems developer, postgraduate CS student, or have alternate (and eminent!) verifiable qualifications you should have no need whatsoever for this section - here is just one tiny example of what can go wrong if you don't know what you are doing. Look for other solutions!
unsafePerformIO
Do you remember that initial attempt to define getchar
?
getchar :: Char
get2chars :: String
get2chars = [a, b] where a = getchar
b = getchar
Let's also recall the problems arising from this faux-definition:
- Because the Haskell compiler treats all functions as pure (not having side effects), it can avoid "unnecessary" calls to
getchar
and use one returned value twice; - Even if it does make two calls, there is no way to determine which call should be performed first. Do you want to return the two characters in the order in which they were read, or in the opposite order? Nothing in the definition of
get2chars
answers this question.
Despite these problems, programmers coming from an imperative language background often look for a way to do this - disguise one or more I/O actions as a pure definition. Having seen procedural entities similar in appearance to:
void putchar(char c);
the thought of just writing:
putchar :: Char -> ()
putchar c = ...
would definitely be more appealing - for example, defining
readContents
as though it were a pure function:
readContents :: Filename -> String
will certainly simplify the code that uses it. However, those exact same problems are also lurking here:
- Attempts to read the contents of files with the same name can be factored (i.e. reduced to a single call) despite the fact that the file (or the current directory) can be changed between calls. Haskell considers all non-
IO
functions to be pure and feels free to merge multiple calls with the same parameters. - This call is not inserted in a sequence of "world transformations", so the compiler doesn't know at what exact moment you want to execute this action. For example, if the file has one kind of contents at the beginning of the program and another at the end - which contents do you want to see? You have no idea when (or even if) this function is going to get invoked, because Haskell sees this function as pure and feels free to reorder the execution of any or all pure functions as needed.
So, implementing supposedly-pure functions that interact with the Real World is considered to be Bad Behavior. Nice programmers never do it ;-)
Nevertheless, there are (semi-official) ways to use I/O actions inside of pure
functions. As you should remember this is prohibited by requiring the
RealWorld
"baton" in order to call an I/O action. Pure functions
don't have the baton, but there is a (ahem) "special" definition that
produces this baton from nowhere, uses it to call an I/O action and then throws
the resulting "world" away! It's a little low-level mirror-smoke. This
particular (and dangerous) definition is:
unsafePerformIO :: IO a -> a
Let's look at how it could be defined:
unsafePerformIO :: (RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld)) -> a
unsafePerformIO action = let (a, world1) = action createNewWorld
in a
where createNewWorld
is an private definition producing a new
"world".
Using unsafePerformIO
, you could easily write "pure-looking
functions" that actually do I/O inside. But don't do this without a real need,
and remember to follow this rule:
- the compiler doesn't know that you are cheating; it still considers each non-
IO
function to be a pure one. Therefore, all the usual optimization rules can (and will!) be applied to its execution.
So you must ensure that:
- The result of each call depends only on its arguments.
- You don't rely on side-effects of this function, which may be not executed if its results are not needed.
Let's investigate this problem more deeply. Function evaluation in Haskell is
determined by a value's necessity - the language computes only the values that
are really required to calculate the final result. But what does this mean with
respect to the main
action? To obtain the final "world", you need
to perform all the intermediate I/O actions that are included in the main
chain. By using unsafePerformIO
we call I/O actions outside of this
chain. What guarantee do we have that they will be run at all? None. The only
time they will be run is if running them is required to compute the overall
function result (which in turn should be required to perform some action in the
main
chain). This is an example of Haskell's evaluation-by-need
strategy. Now you should clearly see the difference:
- An I/O action inside an I/O definition is guaranteed to execute as long as it is (directly or indirectly) inside the
main
chain - even when its result isn't used (because the implicit "world" it returns will be used). You directly specify the order of the action's execution inside the I/O definition. Data dependencies are simulated via the implicit "worlds" that are passed from each I/O action to the next.
- An I/O action inside
unsafePerformIO
will be performed only if the result of this operation is really used. The evaluation order is not guaranteed and you should not rely on it (except when you're sure about whatever data dependencies may exist).
I should also say that inside the unsafePerformIO
call you can
organize a small internal chain of I/O actions with the help of the same
binding operators and/or do
syntactic sugar we've seen above. So
here's how we'd rewrite our previous (pure!) definition of one
using unsafePerformIO
:
one :: Integer
one = unsafePerformIO $ do var <- newIORef 0
modifyIORef var (+1)
readIORef var
and in this case all the operations in this chain will be performed as long
as the result of the unsafePerformIO
call is needed. To ensure this,
the actual unsafePerformIO
implementation evaluates the "world"
returned by the action
:
unsafePerformIO action = let (a,world1) = action createNewWorld
in (world1 `seq` a)
(The seq
operation strictly evaluates its first argument before
returning the value of the second one [8]).
inlinePerformIO
inlinePerformIO
has the same definition as unsafePerformIO
but with the addition of an INLINE
pragma:
-- | Just like unsafePerformIO, but we inline it. Big performance gains as
-- it exposes lots of things to further inlining
{-# INLINE inlinePerformIO #-}
inlinePerformIO action = let (a, world1) = action createNewWorld
in (world1 `seq` a)
Semantically inlinePerformIO
= unsafePerformIO
in as
much as either of those have any semantics at all.
The difference of course is that inlinePerformIO
is even less safe
than unsafePerformIO
. While ghc will try not to duplicate or
common up different uses of unsafePerformIO
, we aggressively
inline inlinePerformIO
. So you can really only use it where the
I/O content is really properly pure, like reading from an immutable memory
buffer (as in the case of ByteString
s). However things like
allocating new buffers should not be done inside inlinePerformIO
since that can easily be floated out and performed just once for the whole
program, so you end up with many things sharing the same buffer, which would
be bad.
So the rule of thumb is that I/O actions wrapped in unsafePerformIO
have to be externally pure while with inlinePerformIO
it has
to be really, really pure or it'll all go horribly wrong.
That said, here's some really hairy code. This should frighten any pure functional programmer...
write :: Int -> (Ptr Word8 -> IO ()) -> Put ()
write !n body = Put $ \c buf@(Buffer fp o u l) ->
if n <= l
then write</code> c fp o u l
else write</code> (flushOld c n fp o u) (newBuffer c n) 0 0 0
where {-# NOINLINE write</code> #-}
write</code> c !fp !o !u !l =
-- warning: this is a tad hardcore
inlinePerformIO
(withForeignPtr fp
(\p -> body $! (p `plusPtr` (o+u))))
`seq` c () (Buffer fp o (u+n) (l-n))
it's used like:
word8 w = write 1 (\p -> poke p w)
This does not adhere to my rule of thumb above. Don't ask exactly why we claim
it's safe :-) (and if anyone really wants to know, ask Ross Paterson who did it
first in the Builder
monoid)
unsafeInterleaveIO
But there is an even stranger operation:
unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a -> IO a
Don't let that type signature fool you - unsafeInterleaveIO
also
uses a dubiously-acquired baton which it uses to set up an underground
relay-race for its unsuspecting parameter. If it happens, this seedy race
then occurs alongside the offical main
relay-race - if they
collide, things will get ugly!
So how does unsafeInterleaveIO
get that bootlegged baton?
Typically by making a forgery of the offical one to keep for itself - it can
do this because the I/O action unsafeInterleaveIO
returns will be
handed the offical baton in the main
relay-race. But one miscreant
realised there was a simpler way:
{-# NOINLINE unsafeInterleaveIO #-}
unsafeInterleaveIO :: IO a -> IO a
unsafeInterleaveIO a = return (unsafePerformIO a)
Why bother with counterfeit copies of batons if you can just make them up?
At least you have some appreciation as to why unsafeInterleaveIO
is, well unsafe! Just don't ask - to talk further is bound to cause grief
and indignation. I won't say anything more about this ruffian I...use all the
time (darn it!)
One can use unsafePerformIO
(not unsafeInterleaveIO
)
to perform I/O operations not in some predefined order but by demand. For
example, the following code:
do let c = unsafePerformIO getChar
do_proc c
will perform the getChar
I/O call only when the value of
c
is really required by the calling code, i.e. it this call will
be performed lazily like any regular Haskell computation.
Now imagine the following code:
do let s = [unsafePerformIO getChar, unsafePerformIO getChar, unsafePerformIO getChar]
do_proc s
The three characters inside this list will be computed on demand too, and this means that their values will depend on the order they are consumed. It is not what we usually want.
unsafeInterleaveIO
solves this problem - it performs I/O only on
demand but allows you to define the exact internal execution order for
parts of your data structure. It is why I wrote that unsafeInterleaveIO
makes an illegal copy of the baton:
unsafeInterleaveIO
accepts an I/O action as a parameter and returns another I/O action as the result:
do str <- unsafeInterleaveIO myGetContents ⋮
unsafeInterleaveIO
doesn't perform any action immediately, it only creates a closure of typea
which upon being needed will perform the action specified as the parameter.
- this action by itself may compute the whole value immediately...or use
unsafeInterleaveIO
again to defer calculation of some sub-components:
myGetContents = do c <- getChar s <- unsafeInterleaveIO myGetContents return (c:s)
This code will be executed only at the moment when the value of str
is really demanded. In this moment, getChar
will be performed
(with its result assigned to c
) and a new lazy-I/O closure will be
created - for s
. This new closure also contains a link to a
myGetContents
call.
The resulting list is then returned. It contains the Char
that was
just read and a link to another myGetContents
call as a way to
compute the rest of the list. Only at the moment when the next value in the
list is required will this operation be performed again.
As a final result, we can postpone the read of the second Char
in
the list before the first one, but have lazy reading of characters as a whole -
bingo!
PS: of course, actual code should include EOF checking; also note that you can
read multiple characters/records at each call:
myGetContents = do
l <- replicateM 512 getChar
s <- unsafeInterleaveIO myGetContents
return (l++s)
and we can rewrite myGetContents
to avoid needing to use
unsafeInterleaveIO
where it's called:
myGetContents = unsafeInterleaveIO $ do
l <- replicateM 512 getChar
s <- myGetContents
return (l++s)
Welcome to the machine: the actual GHC implementation
A little disclaimer: I should say that I'm not describing here exactly what a monad is (I don't even completely understand it myself) and my explanation shows only one possible way to implement the I/O monad in Haskell. For example, the hbc compiler and the Hugs interpreter implements the I/O monad via continuations [9]. I also haven't said anything about exception handling, which is a natural part of the "monad" concept. You can read the All About Monads guide to learn more about these topics.
But there is some good news:
- the I/O monad understanding you've just acquired will work with any implementation and with many other monads. You just can't work with "worlds" directly.
- the I/O monad implementation described here is similar to what GHC uses:
newtype IO a = IO (State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #))
It uses the State# RealWorld
type instead of our RealWorld
,
it uses the (# ... #)
strict tuple for optimization, and it uses
an IO
data constructor instead of our Act
.
Nevertheless, there are no significant changes from the standpoint of our
explanation. Knowing the principle of "chaining" I/O actions by using "worlds",
you can now more easily understand and write low-level implementations of GHC
I/O operations.
Of course, other compilers e.g. yhc/nhc (jhc, too?) define IO
in
other ways.
The Yhc/nhc98 implementation
data World = World
newtype IO a = IO (World -> Either IOError a)
This implementation makes the World
disappear somewhat[10],
and returns Either
a result of type a
, or if an error
occurs then IOError
. The lack of the World
on the
right-hand side of the function can only be done because the compiler knows
special things about the IO
type, and won't overoptimise it.
Further reading
[1] This manual is largely based on Simon Peyton Jones's paper Tackling the awkward squad: monadic input/output, concurrency, exceptions, and foreign-language calls in Haskell. I hope that my manual improves his original explanation of the Haskell I/O system and brings it closer to the point of view of new Haskell programmers. But if you need to learn about concurrency, exceptions and the FFI in Haskell/GHC, the original paper is the best source of information.
[2] You can find more information about concurrency, the FFI and STM at the GHC/Concurrency#Starting points page.
[3] The Arrays page contains exhaustive explanations about using mutable arrays.
[4] Look also at the Using monads page, which contains tutorials and papers really describing these mysterious monads.
[5] An explanation of the basic monad functions, with examples, can be found in the reference guide A tour of the Haskell Monad functions, by Henk-Jan van Tuyl.
[6] Official FFI specifications can be found on the page The Haskell 98 Foreign Function Interface 1.0: An Addendum to the Haskell 98 Report
[7] Using the FFI in multithreaded programs is described in Extending the Haskell Foreign Function Interface with Concurrency
[8] This particular behaviour is not a requirement of Haskell 2010, so the operation of seq
may differ between various Haskell implementations - if you're not sure, staying within the I/O monad is the safest option.
[9] How to Declare an Imperative by Phil Wadler provides an explanation of how this can be done.
[10] The RealWorld
type can even be replaced e.g. Functional I/O Using System Tokens by Lennart Augustsson.
Do you have more questions? Ask in the haskell-cafe mailing list.
To-do list
If you are interested in adding more information to this manual, please add your questions/topics here.
Topics:
fixIO
andmdo
Q
monad
Questions:
- split
(>>=)
/(>>)
/return
section anddo
section, more examples of using binding operators IORef
detailed explanation (==const*
), usage examples, syntax sugar, unboxed refs- explanation of how the actual data "in" mutable references are inside
RealWorld
, rather than inside the references themselves (IORef
,IOArray
& co.) - control structures developing - much more examples
unsafePerformIO
usage examples: global variable,ByteString
, other examples- how
unsafeInterLeaveIO
can be seen as a kind of concurrency, and therefore isn't so unsafe (unlikeunsafeInterleaveST
which really is unsafe) - discussion about different senses of
safe
/unsafe
(like breaking equational reasoning vs. invoking undefined behaviour (so can corrupt the run-time system)) - actual GHC implementation - how to write low-level definitions based on example of
newIORef
's implementation
This manual is collective work, so feel free to add more information to it yourself. The final goal is to collectively develop a comprehensive manual for using the I/O monad.