Or: functor? I 'ardly know 'er!
Monads are difficult to explain without sounding either patronizing or condescending: I would sound patronizing if I came up with some facile analogy and I would be condescending to describe it categorically.
Instead, I'll frame a problem and piece-by-piece solve the problem with what will turn out to be a monad.
This post is written in Typed Racket which you can download for free at the Racket website.
Typed Racket is a functional programming language which heavily discourages imperative programming styles. Like, for instance, programs of this sort:
def doSomething():
x = 5
y = foo()
x = bar(10, y)
return xHere we have three imperative statements modifying some state. Functional languages would prefer that state didn't exist. At least, not the Wild West, anything-goes, no-guarantees-whatsoever-about-who-is-accessing-what-free-love-festival that is the typical understanding.
Imperative programming makes use of side-effects: I may write code which alters a database, or reads the time, or has some other side-effect on the state of the machine or surrounding world. Every time I query a network time server I get a different response, meaning that the result is dependent on mutation of state.
Hell, even just storing the result of a pure computation in a value for use at a later time is relying on the side effect of storing values in memory.
On the other hand, pure functional programming requires you to sequence actions through function composition:
(: square-then-double (-> Real Real))
(define (square-then-double n) (* 2 (*n n)))This is great and all, but how can I recapture the (admitted) simplicity of that python snippet? Maybe this way:
(let ((x 5)
(y (foo)))
(let ((x (bar 10 y)))
x))But that becomes unwieldly after a while.
Correct imperative programs are written every day so there must be some way of representing them in a principled manner which can catch type and other logic errors.
Let's take a side-step to introduce a fundamental concept in type theory. It's
called the Functor. A functor is a higher-order type; it depends on some
base type for its full meaning. For instance, in Typed Racket Listof is a
higher-order type: you can have Listof Number or Listof String or Listof Boolean.
(: list-1 (Listof Number))
(define list-1 '(1 2 3))Not just every higher-order type is a functor, though. A functor must also
implement some way to map pure transformations inside the functor. As a
specific example, I can map the function (lambda (x) (* x x)) inside a
Listof Numbers and the result will be a new list with the squares of the
items of the old list.
Perhaps I have a function to determine if a real number is greater than zero:
(: gt-zero? (-> Real Boolean))
(define (gt-zero? n) (> n 0))
(map gt-zero? list-1)
; => '(#t #t #t)This is a function from Real numbers to Boolean values. Mapping gt-zero?
over a Listof Numbers yields a Listof Booleans. Lists are definitely
functors since their map function is actually called map.
There are other kinds of functors. The simplest functor is what I like to call
Box. It may be defined in Typed Racket as follows:
(struct: (a) Box ((open : a)))A Box just contains some base value and lets you retrieve it later, like so:
(define boxed-two (Box 2))
(define two (Box-open boxed-two))It doesn't do anything interesting to your value. You can write a simple map
function for Box quite easily:
(: box-map (All (a b) (-> (-> a b) (Box a) (Box b))))
(define (box-map f bx)
(Box (f (Box-open bx))))Thus:
(define b1 (Box 2))
(define b2 (box-map gt-zero? b1))produces Box 2 and Box #t.
A Box is a simple context around a base value. A function expecting a
Number argument won't accept a Box Number argument, however we can project
or map functions with Number arguments into a Box Number. And after we map
that operation we can retrieve the resulting pure value.
An imperative, side-effect-ful function is one in which we have some kind of
workspace or context in which we may do crazy shit and then, at the end,
retrieve a pure value. We know how to take values out of a context, and we also
know how to put them in (at least, when that context is Box):
(: box-return (All (a) (-> a (Box a))))
(define (box-return x) (Box x))Why did we call this function return? Think about its use in Python. That's a
clue. In the meantime, let's write a box-y version of gt-zero?:
(: gt-zero-box? (-> Real (Box Boolean)))
(define (gt-zero-box? n) (return (gt-zero? n)))The base type changed and the value was put inside a Box. Given arguments
of a pure value I can perform some operation inside a Box context and return
to you that context, and you would be free to extract the pure value at any
time. And when I say Box I really mean any monad but shh we're getting
there.
But normal functions, like filter or sum on lists, compose. I can write (f (g x)) provided that g's output matches f's input. Can I compose these
monadic functions of type (All (a b) (-> a (Box b)))?
Sure you can! First let's think about the type. The result of some monadic
function from a to b would have the above type, and then another function
might have (All (b c) (-> b (Box c))). So ultimately we want to extract
values from one context, feed them into a monadic continuation, and get the
resulting monadic value.
It's called bind:
(: box-bind (All (a b) (-> (Box a) (-> a (Box b)) (Box b))))
(define (box-bind ma f) (f (Box-open ma)))Have we solved our problem yet? Let's write a monadic function which subtracts 10 from a number, and then determines if the result is greater than zero:
(: sub-10-gt-zero? (-> Real (Box Boolean)))
(define (sub-10-gt-zero? n)
(box-bind (box-return (- n 10)) (λ: ((x : Number))
(box-bind (gt-zero-box? x) (λ: ((answer : Boolean))
(box-return answer))))))If you squint, this sort of looks like we are binding (return (- n 10)) to
the variable x like in an imperative language.
Let's write a syntax-extension to do just this warning: you can ignore this next snippet; I'm only providing it to prove it is possible:
(define-syntax do^
(syntax-rules (:= let)
((_ (:= v e) e2 es ...)
(bind e (lambda (v) (do^ e2 es ...))))
((_ (let [v e] ...) e2 es ...)
(let ((v e) ...)
(do^ e2 es ...)))
((_ e e2 es ...) (bind e (lambda (_) (do^ e2 es ...))))
((_ e) e)))
(define-syntax (do stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ prefix e1 e2 ...)
(with-syntax ((prefix-bind (format-id #'prefix "~a-bind" #'prefix))
(prefix-return (format-id #'return "~a-return" #'prefix)))
#'(syntax-parameterize ((bind (make-rename-transformer #'prefix-bind))
(return (make-rename-transformer #'prefix-return)))
(do^ e1 e2 ...))))))Thanks to user chandler on the #racket IRC room for teaching me how to do this.
So now this is legal:
(: sub-10-gt-zero? (-> Real (Box Boolean)))
(define (sub-10-gt-zero? n)
(do box
(:= x (return (- n 10)))
(:= answer (gt-zero-box? x))
(return answer)))HOLY GODBALLS we just recreated imperative programming. Except it's typesafe, and all those intermediate local variables are guaranteed not to leak out of their enclosing scope. Any side-effects created or observed as a result are safely quarantined inside the monadic function.
Box, together with its return and bind functions, form what is called a
monad. Box recreates the imperative programming style we miss from other
languages, but it is literally the simplest functor to base a monad on. Using
other functors we can go beyond merely being able to write sequential actions
to other more advanced forms of flow control - and still write it imperatively.
Say I have a function which transforms a number and I want to run this
transformation over a list of numbers. I can base a monad off of the List
functor like so:
(: list-return (All (a) (-> a (Listof a))))
(define (list-return x) (cons x '()))
; this is the same as (list x), but I wanted to show what it is doing
(: flatten (All (a) (-> (Listof (Listof a)) (Listof a))))
(define (flatten xss)
(foldr (λ: ((y : (Listof a)) (ys : (Listof a))) (append y ys))
empty xss))
(: list-bind (All (a b) (-> (Listof a) (-> a (Listof b)) (Listof b))))
(define (list-bind ma f)
(flatten (map f ma)))With this in hand, I can write a nice procedural function which multiplies a single number by 5:
(: times-5 (-> Number (Listof Number)))
(define (times-5 n)
(do list
(let [n (* n 5)])
(return n)))And yet, when I run it on a list, it iterates over the entire list for me:
(list-bind '(1 2 3 4 5) times-5)
; => '(5 10 15 20 25)While this may seem a bit overwhelming, remember this only needs to be done once .. and it was just done.
Note that list-bind makes use of map. In fact, while you can write bind
functions without directly using map, the classical definition of a monad was
a triple of functions called map, return, and join.
join has the type (when dealing with Boxes) of (All (a) (-> (Box (Box a)) (Box a))). We have already seen a function with this signature: flatten, for
Lists.
join is really just flatten for monads which aren't Lists. Given a
suitable definition of join, bind may always be defined as such:
(: bind (All (a) (-> (M a) (-> a (M b)) (M b))))
(define (bind mma) (join (map f mma)))This is exactly how we defined list-bind above. However, anecdotally, most of
the time join's only purpose is to define bind so I started with that. So
shoot me.
Monads are not a difficult concept: they are contexts inside of which pure values may create and react to side-effects in the course of computing some final value.
Depending on the implementation of two functions - called return and bind -
the same imperative style of programming can take on different operational
meanings.
How could you create a monad which terminates early if an error value is returned at any point? You can figure it out.
@wvlia5 Just swap the arguments of your
apply-to-monadand you getmap->(a->b) -> m a -> m b. (See also fmap).@marcin-wojtowicz: The first argument to format-id is the lexical context that the created identifier (i.e. "box-return") will have. I guess the
#'returnhere is simply a bug, and it should be#'prefixas well, to have the scope of the prefix the user gave the macro.To understand the difference, this is how it differs: Assume
do1is the same as do, but with #'prefix instead of #'return.