Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- instOrElse f α = { orElse := Alternative.orElse }
Equations
- instToBoolBool = { toBool := fun (b : Bool) => b }
Equations
- «term_<||>_» = Lean.ParserDescr.trailingNode `term_<||>_ 30 31 (Lean.ParserDescr.binary `andthen (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol " <||> ") (Lean.ParserDescr.cat `term 30))
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
How MonadControl
works #
There is a tutorial by Alexis King that this docstring is based on.
Suppose we have foo : ∀ α, IO α → IO α
and bar : StateT σ IO β
(ie, bar : σ → IO (σ × β)
).
We might want to 'map' bar
by foo
. Concretely we would write this as:
opaque foo : ∀ {α}, IO α → IO α
opaque bar : StateT σ IO β
def mapped_foo : StateT σ IO β := do
let s ← get
let (b, s') ← liftM <| foo <| StateT.run bar s
set s'
return b
This is fine but it's not going to generalise, what if we replace StateT Nat IO
with a large tower of monad transformers?
We would have to rewrite the above to handle each of the run
functions for each transformer in the stack.
Is there a way to generalise run
as a kind of inverse of lift
?
We have lift : m α → StateT σ m α
for all m
, but we also need to 'unlift' the state.
But unlift : StateT σ IO α → IO α
can't be implemented. So we need something else.
If we look at the definition of mapped_foo
, we see that lift <| foo <| StateT.run bar s
has the type IO (σ × β)
. The key idea is that σ × β
contains all of the information needed to reconstruct the state and the new value.
Now lets define some values to generalise mapped_foo
:
- Write
IO (σ × β)
asIO (stM β)
- Write
StateT.run . s
asmapInBase : StateT σ IO α → IO (stM β)
- Define
restoreM : IO (stM α) → StateT σ IO α
as below
def stM (α : Type) := α × σ
def restoreM (x : IO (stM α)) : StateT σ IO α := do
let (a,s) ← liftM x
set s
return a
To get:
def mapped_foo' : StateT σ IO β := do
let s ← get
let mapInBase := fun z => StateT.run z s
restoreM <| foo <| mapInBase bar
and finally define
def control {α : Type}
(f : ({β : Type} → StateT σ IO β → IO (stM β)) → IO (stM α))
: StateT σ IO α := do
let s ← get
let mapInBase := fun {β} (z : StateT σ IO β) => StateT.run z s
let r : IO (stM α) := f mapInBase
restoreM r
Now we can write mapped_foo
as:
def mapped_foo'' : StateT σ IO β :=
control (fun mapInBase => foo (mapInBase bar))
The core idea of mapInBase
is that given any β
, it runs an instance of
StateT σ IO β
and 'packages' the result and state as IO (stM β)
so that it can be piped through foo
.
Once it's been through foo
we can then unpack the state again with restoreM
.
Hence we can apply foo
to bar
without losing track of the state.
Here stM β = σ × β
is the 'packaged result state', but we can generalise:
if we have a tower StateT σ₁ <| StateT σ₂ <| IO
, then the
composite packaged state is going to be stM₁₂ β := σ₁ × σ₂ × β
or stM₁₂ := stM₁ ∘ stM₂
.
MonadControl m n
means that when programming in the monad n
,
we can switch to a base monad m
using control
, just like with liftM
.
In contrast to liftM
, however, we also get a function runInBase
that
allows us to "lower" actions in n
into m
.
This is really useful when we have large towers of monad transformers, as we do in the metaprogramming library.
For example there is a function withNewMCtxDepthImp : MetaM α → MetaM α
that runs the input monad instance
in a new nested metavariable context. We can lift this to withNewMctxDepth : n α → n α
using MonadControlT MetaM n
(MonadControlT
is the transitive closure of MonadControl
).
Which means that we can also run withNewMctxDepth
in the Tactic
monad without needing to
faff around with lifts and all the other boilerplate needed in mapped_foo
.
Relationship to MonadFunctor
#
A stricter form of MonadControl
is MonadFunctor
, which defines
monadMap {α} : (∀ {β}, m β → m β) → n α → n α
. Using monadMap
it is also possible to define mapped_foo
above.
However there are some mappings which can't be derived using MonadFunctor
. For example:
@[inline] def map1MetaM [MonadControlT MetaM n] [Monad n] (f : forall {α}, (β → MetaM α) → MetaM α) {α} (k : β → n α) : n α :=
control fun runInBase => f fun b => runInBase <| k b
@[inline] def map2MetaM [MonadControlT MetaM n] [Monad n] (f : forall {α}, (β → γ → MetaM α) → MetaM α) {α} (k : β → γ → n α) : n α :=
control fun runInBase => f fun b c => runInBase <| k b c
In monadMap
, we can only 'run in base' a single computation in n
into the base monad m
.
Using control
means that runInBase
can be used multiple times.
MonadControl is a way of stating that the monad m
can be 'run inside' the monad n
.
This is the same as MonadBaseControl
in Haskell.
To learn about MonadControl
, see the comment above this docstring.
- liftWith : {α : Type u} → (({β : Type u} → n β → m (MonadControl.stM m n β)) → m α) → n α
- restoreM : {α : Type u} → m (MonadControl.stM m n α) → n α
Instances
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Typeclass for the polymorphic forM
operation described in the "do unchained" paper.
Remark:
γ
is a "container" type of elements of typeα
.α
is treated as an output parameter by the typeclass resolution procedure. That is, it tries to find an instance using onlym
andγ
.
Instances
Left-to-right composition of Kleisli arrows.
Equations
- «term_>=>_» = Lean.ParserDescr.trailingNode `term_>=>_ 55 56 (Lean.ParserDescr.binary `andthen (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol " >=> ") (Lean.ParserDescr.cat `term 55))
Instances For
Right-to-left composition of Kleisli arrows.
Equations
- «term_<=<_» = Lean.ParserDescr.trailingNode `term_<=<_ 55 56 (Lean.ParserDescr.binary `andthen (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol " <=< ") (Lean.ParserDescr.cat `term 55))
Instances For
Same as Bind.bind
but with arguments swapped.
Equations
- «term_=<<_» = Lean.ParserDescr.trailingNode `term_=<<_ 55 56 (Lean.ParserDescr.binary `andthen (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol " =<< ") (Lean.ParserDescr.cat `term 55))