Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The sequence monad

I'm currently reading the excellent tutorial on monads here: and paraphrasing it to help me understand.

You may prefer to look at my earlier post first. This is a follow-up to that.

We've already seen that

((fn [a]
   ((fn [b]
      (* a b))
is the same as:

(let [a 1
      b 2]
  (* a b))

The functional for loop

(for [a (range 5)
      b (range a)]
  (* a b))

has a similar structure.

Now the variables are being attached to members of sequences, and the earlier names can be used in the calculation of the later values. At the end, a sequence results.

If we didn't have for, what could we write to get the same effect? The obvious analogous answer:

(map (fn [a]
       (map (fn [b]
              (* a b))
            (range a)))
     (range 5))

doesn't quite work, because the results are nested. We actually need either:

(mapcat (fn [a]
       (map (fn [b]
              (* a b))
            (range a)))
     (range 5))


(mapcat (fn [a]
       (mapcat (fn [b]
              (list (* a b)))
            (range a)))
     (range 5))

to reproduce the same result as for.

There is obviously something I don't understand here, because I prefer the first version, but the second version is the monadic way. Let's use that and see whether there's a good reason later on.

Our new bind function is:

(defn s-bind [value function]
  (mapcat function value))

and we'll call the other function unit

(defn s-unit [value]
  (list value))

And now we can write:

(s-bind (range 5) (fn [a]
        (s-bind (range a) (fn [b]
                            (s-unit (* a b))))))

Let's tidy up the syntax with a macro again.

Because we've added the unit function, we need a faintly more complex macro than before:

(defmacro do-monad [[binder result] bindings expression]
  (if (= 0 (count bindings))
    `(~result ~expression)
    `(~binder ~(second bindings) (fn[~(first bindings)]
       (do-monad [~binder ~result] ~(drop 2 bindings) ~expression)))))

which allows us to write:

(do-monad [s-bind s-unit]
          [a (range 5)
           b (range a)]
          (* a b))

With our new monad (the sequence monad), we've recreated the functional for loop

(for [a '(1 2 3) 
      b '(10 20 30) 
      c '(100 200 300)] 
  (+ a b c))

remember that we have the earlier names available lower down

(do-monad [s-bind s-unit]
          [end  (range 6)
           begin (range end)
           second (range (inc begin) end)
           third (range (inc second) end)]
          (list begin second third end))

This expression may be thought of as a loop, or as a sequence of multiple valued computations.

We're saying 'take all paths in':
Choose end from (all numbers from zero but less than six)
Choose begin from (all numbers from zero but less than end)
Choose second from (all numbers between begin and end)
Choose third from (all numbers between second and end)
  give me the tuple (begin second third end)

We can instantly create another monad, using sets instead of lists

(defn set-bind [sequence function]
  (set (mapcat function sequence)))
(defn set-unit [value]
  (set (list value)))

It's effectively the same, but at every step it removes duplicates

(do-monad [set-bind set-unit]
          [a '(1 2 3)
           b '(1 2 3)
           c '(1 2 3)]
          (+ a b c))

There's a sense in which a monad is the two functions bind and unit.

Our earlier examples, the identity monad and the maybe monad, only seemed to have bind, but they fit into the monad framework if we take their unit function to be the identity function (fn [x] x)


Using the identity monad, or let, we can chain functions into arbitrary nets.

Using the maybe monad, we can chain arbitrary functions which take values but produce either values or nil.

Using the sequence monad, we can chain functions which take values and produce ordered lists of values into arbitrary computational nets.

Using the set monad we can chain functions which produce sets of values.

So monads are to do with chaining computations, and with naming intermediates

They are the abstract structure behind let and for, which are powerful concepts that we know and use all the time in all styles of programming.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

It's lazy, lazy, very very lazy

From Jason Wolfe's excellent blog:
The snippet:  (apply distinct? (interleave (iterate inc 0) (iterate inc 10))) 

As he says: Sweet!