This module is due Thursday, December 1 at 1:15pm.

> {-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-}
>
> import Control.Monad.Writer

Recall that we’ve seen the (>>=) operator with the following type:

(>>=) :: Either Error a -> (a -> Either Error b) -> Either Error b

This is actually an instance of a more general pattern called a monad. A monad is a type m which supports the following operations:

• return :: a -> m a
• (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

Intuitively, a value of type m a represents a computation or program that computes a value of type a, and might have some “effects” (depending on m).

• return creates a computation that immediately results in the given value, with no effects. (In the case of Either Error, return = Right.)
• (>>=) sequences two computations together into one bigger one, where the second computation can depend on the output of the first.

Let’s look at a simple example. The following Possibly type is the same as the standard Maybe, type, but redefined so you can practice making a Monad instance for it (of course, Maybe already has a Monad instance defined in the standard library).

> data Possibly a where
>   Nope :: Possibly a
>   Definitely :: a -> Possibly a
>   deriving (Show, Functor)

Note that every Monad is also a Functor (which generalizes the <\$> operator we saw for parsers), as well as an Applicative (which generalizes the <*> operator). (Because of time constraints, we won’t spend time talking about those but see here if you’re interested in learning more about them, or take CSCI 365, Functional Programming.) GHC can automatically generate a default instance of Functor for us (see deriving Functor above), and we can make an Applicative instance for free once we have a Monad instance: we just define pure = return and (<*>) = ap (ap is a function from the standard library which is defined in terms of return and (>>=)).

> instance Applicative Possibly where
>   pure  = return
>   (<*>) = ap
• Your turn: fill in a defintion for the Monad Possibly instance below!
> instance Monad Possibly where

Let’s look at a simple example. First, checkEven returns Just n when its argument n is even, and Nothing otherwise. That is, it is a sort of “filter” that only “lets through” even numbers.

> checkEven :: Int -> Maybe Int
> checkEven n
>   | even n    = Just n
>   | otherwise = Nothing

addEvens takes two Int values as input and adds them if both are even (and fails otherwise). Here’s a straightforward first version:

> addEvens :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
>   checkEven m >>= (\me -> checkEven n >>= (\ne -> return (me + ne)))

We actually don’t need the parentheses, since anonymous functions extend as far to the right as possible:

> addEvens2 :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
>   checkEven m >>= \me -> checkEven n >>= \ne -> return (me + ne)

It’s annoying to have everything on the same line; it’s hard to read, and quickly gets unwieldy with larger compositions of actions. So we can introduce some newlines to make things more readable, like this:

> addEvens3 :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
>   checkEven m >>= \me ->
>   checkEven n >>= \ne ->
>   return (me + ne)

This style became so common that it was decided to add some special syntax sugar, called do-notation, to Haskell. We can rewrite addEvens like so:

> addEvens4 :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
> addEvens4 m n = do
>   me <- checkEven m
>   ne <- checkEven n
>   return (me + ne)

addEvens4 desugars to exactly the same thing as addEvens3.

Let’s look at another example of a Monad, one we haven’t seen before. The type State s is a Monad which represents the use of a mutable state of type s. That is, a value of type State s a is a computation that results in an a and has access to a mutable state of type s.

In addition to return :: a -> State s a and (>>=) :: State s a -> (a -> State s b) -> State s b, the State monad supports two additional operations:

• get :: State s s returns the current state as its output.

• put :: s -> State s () sets the state to a new value. It returns () (“unit”), which is an uninformative type with only a single value (also called ()). Essentially a return type of () means it “does not return anything”, i.e. it is the same as a void method in C or Java.

Let’s try some examples.

• Write a function called tick which adds one to the current integer state and returns the old state. For example, if the state is 6, tick will update the state to 7 and then return 6.
> tick :: State Int Int
> tick = undefined

To test your implementation of tick and other exercises below, you can use the function

runState :: State s a -> s -> (a,s)

which takes a State computation to run and an initial state value, and yields the return value and final state value. For example,

ghci> runState tick 4
(4,5)

This runs the tick computation with an initial state of 4, which results in the return value 4 and an updated state of 5. (You may also be interested in evalState and execState; ask GHCi for their types to see what they do.)

• Now write a function tick3 :: State Int Int which increments the state by 3 and returns the original state. For example, running tick3 with an initial state of 4 will return 4 and update the state to 7. Do not use the number 3 or the + operator in your solution; just call tick three times.
> tick3 :: State Int Int
> tick3 = undefined
• State also supports an operation called modify, which applies a given function to the mutable state. Show how to implement modify in terms of get and put:
> modify2 :: (s -> s) -> State s ()
> modify2 = undefined

Essentially, we can think of State as a mini-EDSL for expressing programs that manipulate a single mutable variable.

## A tiny stack EDSL

• ROTATE ROLES and write the name of the new driver here:

Let’s use the State monad to build a tiny embedded DSL for operating on a mutable stack of integers.

• Complete the definition of the StackProgI EDSL below.
> -- A 'StackProgI a' is a program which returns an 'a' and has access
> -- to a mutable stack of Ints.
> type StackProgI a = State [Int] a
>
> -- Get the size of the stack.
> sizeI :: StackProgI Int
> sizeI = undefined
>
> -- Push an Int onto the stack.
> pushI :: Int -> StackProgI ()
> pushI = undefined
>
> -- Pop the top Int from the stack and return it. (For now, fail by
> -- calling 'error' the stack is empty.)
> popI :: StackProgI Int
> popI = undefined
>
> -- Look at the top Int on the stack without popping it.  (Fail with 'error'
> -- if the stack is empty.)
> peekI :: StackProgI Int
> peekI = undefined
>
> -- Run a 'StackProgI a' starting with the empty stack, returning the
> -- produced value of type 'a' along with the final stack state.
> runStackProgI :: StackProgI a -> (a, [Int])
> runStackProgI = undefined

Now let’s write a few programs using this new EDSL.

• Write opI, which pops the top two values from the stack, performs a given binary operation on them, and pushes the result back on the stack. (Hint: use popI and pushI instead of manipulating the stack directly!)
> opI :: (Int -> Int -> Int) -> StackProgI ()
> opI = undefined
• Write pushListI, which pushes all the elements in a list onto the stack. (Hint: it is possible to implement pushListI with one line of code.)
> pushListI :: [Int] -> StackProgI ()
> pushListI = undefined
• Write crushI, which repeatedly performs an operation on the top two items on the stack until there is only one item left. (Hint: don’t manipulate the stack directly; use sizeI, opI, and recursion to get the job done. You may also find the when function useful.)
> crushI :: (Int -> Int -> Int) -> StackProgI ()
> crushI = undefined

Be sure to test your programs using runStackProgI. You will find pushListI helpful for testing opI and crushI.

## Error handling and monad transformers

• ROTATE ROLES and write the name of the new driver here:

It’s unsatisfactory having our stack language crash with error on a stack underflow. In this section we’ll explore a more principled approach to error handling via monad transformers, which allow us to combine the effects of several monads into one.

Here’s a type for runtime errors that can arise from stack programs (for now there’s only Underflow):

> data StackError where
>   Underflow :: StackError
>   deriving Show

And now for the definition of StackProgE, which adds the possibility of errors. While we’re at it, let’s generalize from stacks of Ints to stacks of any type, represented by the type variable el:

> type StackProgE el a = ExceptT StackError (State [el]) a

ExceptT is a monad transformer which adds the possibility of StackErrors on top of the existing monad State [el].

• Reimplement the stack EDSL by implementing sizeE, pushE, popE, and peekE. They should work like the corresponding methods for StackProgI, but modified to throw StackErrors as appropriate instead of calling error.

Here’s what you need to know:

• StackProgE is still a Monad, of course.

• StackProgE still has a State component, so you can use put, get, and modify as before.

• You can use throwError :: StackError -> StackProgE el a to signal an error. Essentially, use throwError anywhere you would have used Left, as if we were still working in terms of a type like Either StackError.

> sizeE :: StackProgE el Int
> sizeE = undefined
>
> pushE :: el -> StackProgE el ()
> pushE = undefined
>
> popE :: StackProgE el el
> popE = undefined
>
> peekE :: StackProgE el el
> peekE = undefined
• Now implement runStackProgE below. Follow the types! You will find the runExceptT function helpful.
> runStackProgE :: StackProgE el a -> (Either StackError a, [el])
> runStackProgE = undefined
• Test the operations that can throw an error to make sure they work properly. For example, what happens when you call runStackProgE popE?

• Finally, reimplement operations analogous to opI, pushListI, and crushI. Ideally, if you implemented them elegantly in the first place, their implementations will not need to change other than updating popI to popE and so on:

> opE :: (el -> el -> el) -> StackProgE el ()
> opE = undefined
>
> pushListE :: [el] -> StackProgE el ()
> pushListE = undefined
>
> crushE :: (el -> el -> el) -> StackProgE el ()
> crushE = undefined

## A deep stack EDSL

• ROTATE ROLES and write the name of the new driver here:

It was annoying that we had to reimplement everything when we switched from StackProgI to StackProgE. The solution is to use a deep embedding, which we can then interpret via multiple semantics. The cool thing is that we can make a Monad instance for our deep embedding, and continue to write exactly the same programs as before, using do-notation and so on. The difference is that our programs will now construct ASTs, which we can separately optimize, interpret, and so on.

Here is the AST for our deep embedding:

> data StackProgAST el a where
>
>   -- A simple return value.
>   Return :: a -> StackProgAST el a
>
>   -- Push a value on the stack.  This instruction stores the value
>   -- to push, and the rest of the program (i.e. it's a node with a
>   -- single child node).
>   Push :: el -> StackProgAST el a -> StackProgAST el a
>
>   -- Pop a value from the stack.  Stores a function which, when
>   -- given the element that is popped, determines the rest of the
>   -- program.  Another way to think of it is that a Pop node is like
>   -- an infinitely-branching tree node: there is one child AST node
>   -- for every possible element that could be popped.
>   Pop  :: (el -> StackProgAST el a) -> StackProgAST el a
>
>   -- Peek at the value on the top of the stack.
>   Peek :: (el -> StackProgAST el a) -> StackProgAST el a
>
>   -- Get the size of the stack.
>   Size :: (Int -> StackProgAST el a) -> StackProgAST el a
>
>   deriving Functor
>
> instance Applicative (StackProgAST el) where
>   pure = return
>   (<*>) = ap
• Write a Monad instance for StackProgAST el below. You can do it just by following the types, but here is the intuitive way to think about it: given an AST t :: StackProgAST el a, which is like a big (infinitely-branching) tree with values of type a at all the leaves (wrapped in Return), and a function a -> StackProgAST el b which says how to continue from any value of type a, the bind operator t >>= f calls f on every leaf value and splices in the resulting trees.

This instance is definitely tricky to think about, although the code does not end up being that long in the end. If you are stuck, try carefully writing out all the types involved. Treat it like a jigsaw puzzle, figuring out how to put all the different pieces together so the types fit properly.

> instance Monad (StackProgAST el) where
• Now write size, push, pop, and peek below, which each build a single AST node immediately followed by a Return node.
> size :: StackProgAST el Int
> size = undefined
>
> push :: el -> StackProgAST el ()
> push = undefined
>
> pop :: StackProgAST el el
> pop = undefined
>
> peek :: StackProgAST el el
> peek = undefined
• Now reimplement op, pushList, and crush. The implementations of op and crush should still be very similar to your previous implementations of these operations, even though they are now doing something very different (namely, splicing together ASTs instead of actually operating on stacks).

The implementation of pushList, however, might have to change a bit. Previously, since you were implementing pushList directly in terms of a state-based semantics with a stack, you could implement pushList simply by modifying the state. Now, however, pushList has to build an AST, and we don’t know in advance how the AST will be interpreted: the ultimate semantics might not even involve a mutable state at all! So instead, you will have to implement pushList by turning it into a series of calls to push (which will in turn build an AST containing a bunch of Push nodes).

> op :: (el -> el -> el) -> StackProgAST el ()
> op = undefined
>
> pushList :: [el] -> StackProgAST el ()
> pushList = undefined
>
> crush :: (el -> el -> el) -> StackProgAST el ()
> crush = undefined
• Now write interpStackProgE, which interprets an AST as a StackProgE program.
> interpStackProgE :: StackProgAST el a -> StackProgE el a
> interpStackProgE = undefined
• Finally, write runAsStackProgE, which combines interpStackProgE with runStackProgE to directly run an AST. Test it by running programs such as pushList [3,2,6,4] >> crush (*).
> runAsStackProgE :: StackProgAST el a -> (Either StackError a, [el])
> runAsStackProgE = undefined

## An alternative semantics

• ROTATE ROLES and write the name of the new driver here:

Now that we have a deep EDSL, we can use different semantics to interpret it without having to rewrite all our existing programs.

Consider the following definition of StackProgW, which adds WriterT [String] as compared to StackProgE. WriterT [String] adds a write-only log of type [String], which we can use to generate a sequence of log messages.

> type StackProgW el a = ExceptT StackError (WriterT [String] (State [el])) a

You can use the function tell :: [String] -> StackProgW el () to add some logging messages. In particular, each pop or push operation should log a message like "Popped 3" or "Pushed 6".

• Implement interpStackProgW, which interprets a StackProgAST as a StackProgW computation. (Hint: you will probably want to implement sizeW, pushW, popW, and peekW functions which implement the operations specifically for StackProgW, with appropriate logging operations added. You will probably need to add Show el constraints, e.g. popW :: Show el => StackProgW el el.)
> interpStackProgW :: Show el => StackProgAST el a -> StackProgW el a
> interpStackProgW = undefined
• Finally, implement runAsStackProgW. Test it. For example, here is what my implementation does:

>>> runAsStackProgW (pushList [1,2,3] >> crush (*))
((Right (),["Pushed 1","Pushed 2","Pushed 3","Popped 3","Popped 2","Pushed 6","Popped 6","Popped 1","Pushed 6"]),[6])
> runAsStackProgW :: Show el => StackProgAST el a -> ((Either StackError a, [String]), [el])
> runAsStackProgW = undefined