# Difference between revisions of "Partibles for composing monads"

m (New comonad subsection) |
m (Category "Arrow" added) |
||

Line 110: | Line 110: | ||

[[User:Atravers|Atravers]] 04:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) | [[User:Atravers|Atravers]] 04:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) | ||

+ | [[Category:Arrow]] | ||

[[Category:Monad]] | [[Category:Monad]] | ||

[[Category:Proposals]] | [[Category:Proposals]] |

## Revision as of 04:20, 2 April 2022

Having praised monads to the hilt, let me level one criticism. Monads tend to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If you discover that you need interaction deep within your program, you must rewrite that segment to use a monad. If you discover that you need two sorts of interaction, you tend to make a single monad support both sorts. It seems to me that instead we should be able to move smoothly from no monads (no interactions) to one monad (a single form of interaction) to many monads (several independent forms of interactions). How to achieve this remains a challenge for the future.

`How to Declare an Imperative, Philip Wadler.`

_{ }
Assuming the partible types being used are appropriately defined, then:

```
type M p a = p -> a
unit :: Partible p => a -> M p a
unit x = \ u -> let !_ = part u in x
bind :: Partible p => M p a -> (a -> M p b) -> M p b
m `bind` k = \ u -> let !(u1, u2) = part u in
let !x = m u1 in
let !y = k x u2 in
y
next :: Partible p => M p a -> M p b -> M p b
m `next` w = \ u -> let !(u1, u2) = part u in
let !x = m u1 in
let !y = w u2 in
y
fail :: Partible p => String -> M p a
fail s = \ u -> let !_ = part u in error s
```

Furthermore:

```
mfix :: Partible p => (a -> M p a) -> M p a
mfix m = \ u -> yet (\ x -> m x u)
mcommute :: (Partible p1, Partible p2) => M p1 (M p2 a) -> M p2 (M p1 a)
mcommute g = \ v u -> g u v
mcommute' :: (Monad m, Partible p) => m (M p a) -> M p (m a)
mcommute' m = \ v -> liftM ($ v) m
```

where:

yet :: (a -> a) -> a yet f = f (yet f)

Using partible types to define monadic ones can enable an intermediate approach to the use of effects, in contrast to the *all-or-nothing proposition* of only using the monadic interface. In addition, if the definitions for such monadic types are *visible* (e.g. as type synonyms), this may also allow the manipulation of control in ways beyond what the monadic interface provides.

### Composing arrows

Partible types can also be used to define arrow types:

```
type A p b c = (p -> b) -> (p -> c)
arr :: Partible p => (b -> c) -> A p b c
arr f = \ c' u -> f $! c' u
both :: Partible p => A p b c -> A p b' c' -> A p (b, b') (c, c')
f' `both` g' = \ c' u -> let !(u1:u2:u3:_) = parts u in
let !(x, x') = c' u1 in
let !y = f' (unit x) u2 in
let !y' = g' (unit x') u3 in
(y, y')
where
unit x u = let !_ = part u in x
```

(...though most will probably opt for the convenience of the associated `Kleisli`

type).

### Composing comonads

Comonadic types can be defined using partible types as well:

```
type C p a = (a, p)
extract :: Partible p => C p a -> a
extract (x, u) = let !_ = part u in x
duplicate :: Partible p => C p a -> C p (C p a)
duplicate (x, u) = let !(u1, u2) = part u in
((x, u1), u2)
extend :: Partible p => (C p a -> b) -> C p a -> C p b
extend h (x, u) = let !(u1, u2) = part u in
let !y = h (x, u1) in
(y, u2)
```

See also:

- Plainly partible
- Partible laws
- Burton-style nondeterminism
- MonadFix
- Prelude extensions
- Bang patterns
- GHC ticket 19809: Overhaul ST using
*pseudodatata*

Atravers 04:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)