Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
|
9:39 PM |
No comments |
Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
Mind the pure function below, in an imperative language:
def foo(x,y): x = f(x) if a(x) if c(x): x = g(x) else: x = h(x) x = f(x) y = f(y) if a(y) x = g(x) if b(y) return [x,y] That function represents a style where you have to incrementally update variables. It can be avoided in most cases, but there are situations where that pattern is unavoidable - for example, writing a cooking procedure for a robot, which inherently requires a series of steps and decisions. Now, imagine we were trying to represent foo in Haskell.
foo x0 y0 = let x1 = if a x0 then f x0 else x0 in let x2 = if c x1 then g x1 else h x1 in let x3 = f x2 in let y1 = if a y0 then f y0 else y0 in let x4 = if b y1 then g x3 else x3 in [x4,y1] That code works, but it is too complicated and error prone due to the need for manually managing the numeric tags. Notice that, after x1 is set, x0's value should never be used again, but it still can. If you accidentally use it, that will be an undetected error.
I've managed to solve this problem using the State monad:
fooSt x y = execState (do (x,y) <- get when (a x) (put (f x, y)) (x,y) <- get if c x then put (g x, y) else put (h x, y) (x,y) <- get put (f x, y) (x,y) <- get when (a y) (put (x, f y)) (x,y) <- get when (b y) (put (g x, x))) (x,y) This way, need for tag-tracking goes away, as well as the risk of accidentally using an outdated variable. But now the code is verbose and much harder to understand, mainly due to the repetition of (x,y) <- get.
So: what is a more readable, elegant and safe way to express this pattern?
Answer by rampion for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
I'd probably do something like this:
foo x y = ( x', y' ) where x' = bgf y' . cgh . af $ x y' = af y af z = (if a z then f else id) z cgh z = (if c z then g else h) z bg y x = (if b y then g else id) x For something more complicated, you may want to consider using lens:
whenM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m () -> m () whenM c a = c >>= \res -> when res a ifM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a ifM mb ml mr = mb >>= \b -> if b then ml else mr foo :: Int -> Int -> (Int, Int) foo = curry . execState $ do whenM (uses _1 a) $ _1 %= f ifM (uses _1 c) (_1 %= g) (_1 %= h) _1 %= f whenM (uses _2 a) $ _2 %= f whenM (uses _2 b) $ do _1 %= g And there's nothing stopping you from using more descriptive variable names:
foo :: Int -> Int -> (Int, Int) foo = curry . execState $ do let x :: Lens (a, c) (b, c) a b x = _1 y :: Lens (c, a) (c, b) a b y = _2 whenM (uses x a) $ x %= f ifM (uses x c) (x %= g) (x %= h) x %= f whenM (uses y a) $ y %= f whenM (uses y b) $ do x %= g Answer by Franky for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
The problem you state looks like a nice application for arrows:
import Control.Arrow if' :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a) -> a -> a if' p f g x = if p x then f x else g x foo2 :: (Int,Int) -> (Int,Int) foo2 = first (if' c g h . if' a f id) >>> first f >>> second (if' a f id) >>> (\(x,y) -> (if b y then g x else x , y)) in particular, first lifts a function a -> b to (a,c) -> (b,c), which is more idiomatic.
Edit: if' allows a lift
import Control.Applicative (liftA3) -- a functional if for lifting if'' b x y = if b then x else y if' :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a) -> a -> a if' = liftA3 if'' Answer by Nikita Volkov for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
I always prefer layering state transformers to using a single state over a tuple: it definitely declutters things by letting you "focus" on a specific layer (representations of the x and y variables in our case):
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class import Control.Monad.Trans.State foo :: x -> y -> (x, y) foo x y = (flip runState) y $ (flip execStateT) x $ do get >>= \v -> when (a v) (put (f v)) get >>= \v -> put ((if c v then g else h) v) modify f lift $ get >>= \v -> when (a v) (put (f v)) lift get >>= \v -> when (b v) (modify g) The lift function allows us to focus on the inner state layer, which is y.
Answer by Pit Delport for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
This is a job for the ST (state transformer) library.
ST provides:
- Stateful computations in the form of the ST type. These look like
ST s afor a computation that results in a value of typea, and may be run withrunSTto obtain a pureavalue. - First-class mutable references in the form of the STRef type. The
newSTRef aaction creates a newSTRef s areference with an initial value ofa, and which can be read withreadSTRef refand written withwriteSTRef ref a. A single ST computation can use any number of STRef references internally.
Together, these let you express the same mutable variable functionality as in your imperative example.
To use ST and STRef, we need to import:
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction #-} import Control.Monad.ST.Safe import Data.STRef Instead of using the low-level readSTRef and writeSTRef all over the place, we can define the following helpers to match the imperative operations that the Python-style foo example uses:
-- STRef assignment. (=:) :: STRef s a -> ST s a -> ST s () ref =: x = writeSTRef ref =<< x -- STRef function application. ($:) :: (a -> b) -> STRef s a -> ST s b f $: ref = f `fmap` readSTRef ref -- Postfix guard syntax. if_ :: Monad m => m () -> m Bool -> m () action `if_` guard = act' =<< guard where act' b = if b then action else return () This lets us write:
ref =: xto assign the value of ST computationxto the STRefref.(f $: ref)to apply a pure functionfto the STRefref.action `if_` guardto executeactiononly ifguardresults in True.
With these helpers in place, we can faithfully translate the original imperative definition of foo into Haskell:
a = (< 10) b = even c = odd f x = x + 3 g x = x * 2 h x = x - 1 f3 x = x + 2 -- A stateful computation that takes two integer STRefs and result in a final [x,y]. fooST :: Integral n => STRef s n -> STRef s n -> ST s [n] fooST x y = do x =: (f $: x) `if_` (a $: x) x' <- readSTRef x if c x' then x =: (g $: x) else x =: (h $: x) x =: (f $: x) y =: (f $: y) `if_` (a $: y) x =: (g $: x) `if_` (b $: y) sequence [readSTRef x, readSTRef y] -- Pure wrapper: simply call fooST with two fresh references, and run it. foo :: Integral n => n -> n -> [n] foo x y = runST $ do x' <- newSTRef x y' <- newSTRef y fooST x' y' -- This will print "[9,3]". main = print (foo 0 0) Points to note:
- Although we first had to define some syntactical helpers (
=:,$:,if_) before translatingfoo, this demonstrates how you can use ST and STRef as a foundation to grow your own little imperative language that's directly suited to the problem at hand. - Syntax aside, this
x' <- readSTRef x binding in the Haskell code is only in order to use it with the native if/else syntax: if desired, this can be replaced with an appropriate ST-based if/else construct.) foo without knowing that it uses mutable state internally, while ST callers can directly use fooST (and for example provide it with existing STRefs to modify).Answer by Tobia for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
@Sibi said it best in his comment:
I would suggest you to stop thinking imperatively and rather think in a functional way. I agree that it will take some time to getting used to the new pattern, but try to translate imperative ideas to functional languages isn't a great approach.
Practically speaking, your chain of let can be a good starting point:
foo x0 y0 = let x1 = if a x0 then f x0 else x0 in let x2 = if c x1 then g x1 else h x1 in let x3 = f x2 in let y1 = if a y0 then f y0 else y0 in let x4 = if b y1 then g x3 else x3 in [x4,y1] But I would suggest using a single let and giving descriptive names to the intermediate stages.
In this example unfortunately I don't have a clue what the various x's and y's do, so I cannot suggest meaningful names. In real code you would use names such as x_normalized, x_translated, or such, instead of x1 and x2, to describe what those values really are.
In fact, in a let or where you don't really have variables: they're just shorthand names you give to intermediate results, to make it easy to compose the final expression (the one after in or before the where.)
This is the spirit behind the x_bar and x_baz below. Try to come up with names that are reasonably descriptive, given the context of your code.
foo x y = let x_bar = if a x then f x else x x_baz = f if c x_bar then g x_bar else h x_bar y_bar = if a y then f y else y x_there = if b y_bar then g x_baz else x_baz in [x_there, y_bar] Then you can start recognizing patterns that were hidden in the imperative code. For example, x_bar and y_bar are basically the same transformation, applied respectively to x and y: that's why they have the same suffix "_bar" in this nonsensical example; then your x2 probably doesn't need an intermediate name , since you can just apply f to the result of the entire "if c then g else h".
Going on with the pattern recognition, you should factor out the transformations that you are applying to variables into sub-lambdas (or whatever you call the auxiliary functions defined in a where clause.)
Again, I don't have a clue what the original code did, so I cannot suggest meaningful names for the auxiliary functions. In a real application, f_if_a would be called normalize_if_needed or thaw_if_frozen or mow_if_overgrown... you get the idea:
foo x y = let x_bar = f_if_a x y_bar = f_if_a y x_baz = f (g_if_c_else_h x_bar) x_there = g_if_b x_baz y_bar in [x_there, y_bar] where f_if_a x | a x = f x | otherwise = x g_if_c_else_h x | c x = g x | otherwise = h x g_if_b x y | b y = g x | otherwise = x Don't disregard this naming business.
The whole point of Haskell and other pure functional languages is to express algorithms without the assignment operator, meaning the tool that can modify the value of an existing variable.
The names you give to things inside a function definition, whether introduced as arguments, let, or where, can only refer to one value (or auxiliary function) throughout the entire definition, so that your code can be more easily reasoned about and proven correct.
If you don't give them meaningful names (and conversely giving your code a meaningful structure) then you're missing out on the entire purpose of Haskell.
(IMHO the other answers so far, citing monads and other shenanigans, are barking up the wrong tree.)
Answer by Zeta for Is there a way to elegantly represent this pattern in Haskell?
Your goals
While the direct transformation of imperative code would usually lead to the ST monad and STRef, lets think about what you actually want to do:
- You want to manipulate values conditionally.
- You want to return that value.
- You want to sequence the steps of your manipulation.
Requirements
Now this indeed looks first like the ST monad. However, if we follow the simple monad laws, together with do notation, we see that
do x <- return $ if somePredicate x then g x else h x x <- return $ if someOtherPredicate x then a x else b x is exactly what you want. Since you need only the most basic functions of a monad (return and >>=), you can use the simplest:
The Identity monad
foo x y = runIdentity $ do x <- return $ if a x then f x else x x <- return $ if c x then g x else h x x <- return $ f x y <- return $ if a x then f y else y x <- return $ if b y then g x else y return (x,y) Note that you cannot use let x = if a x then f x else x, because in this case the x would be the same on both sides, whereas
x <- return $ if a x then f x else x is the same as
(return $ if a x then (f x) else x) >>= \x -> ... and the x in the if expression is clearly not the same as the resulting one, which is going to be used in the lambda on the right hand side.
Helpers
In order to make this more clear, you can add helpers like
condM :: Monad m => Bool -> a -> a -> m a condM p a b = return $ if p then a else b to get an even more concise version:
foo x y = runIdentity $ do x <- condM (a x) (f x) x x <- fmap f $ condM (c x) (g x) (h x) y <- condM (a y) (f y) y x <- condM (b y) (g x) x return (x , y) Ternary craziness
And while we're up to it, lets crank up the craziness and introduce a ternary operator:
(?) :: Bool -> (a, a) -> a b ? ie = if b then fst ie else snd ie (??) :: Monad m => Bool -> (a, a) -> m a (??) p = return . (?) p (#) :: a -> a -> (a, a) (#) = (,) infixr 2 ?? infixr 2 # infixr 2 ? foo x y = runIdentity $ do x <- a x ?? f x # x x <- fmap f $ c x ?? g x # h x y <- a y ?? f y # y x <- b y ?? g x # x return (x , y) But the bottomline is, that the Identity monad has everything you need for this task.
Imperative or non-imperative
One might argue whether this style is imperative. It's definitely a sequence of actions. But there's no state, unless you count the bound variables. However, then a pack of let ? in ? declarations also gives an implicit sequence: you expect the first let to bind first.
Using Identity is purely functional
Either way, the code above doesn't introduce mutability. x doesn't get modified, instead you have a new x or y shadowing the last one. This gets clear if you desugar the do expression as noted above:
foo x y = runIdentity $ a x ?? f x # x >>= \x -> c x ?? g x # h x >>= \x -> return (f x) >>= \x -> a y ?? f y # y >>= \y -> b y ?? g x # x >>= \x -> return (x , y) Getting rid of the simplest monad
However, if we would use (?) on the left hand side and remove the returns, we could replace (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b) by something with type a -> (a -> b) -> b. This just happens to be flip ($). We end up with:
($>) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b ($>) = flip ($) infixr 0 $> -- same infix as ($) foo x y = a x ? f x # x $> \x -> c x ? g x # h x $> \x -> f x $> \x -> a y ? f y # y $> \y -> b y ? g x # x $> \x -> (x, y) This is very similar to the desugared do expression above. Note that any usage of Identity can be transformed into this style, and vice-versa.
Fatal error: Call to a member function getElementsByTagName() on a non-object in D:\XAMPP INSTALLASTION\xampp\htdocs\endunpratama9i\www-stackoverflow-info-proses.php on line 72
0 comments:
Post a Comment