27 Jan 21:30 2013
suggestions for improving MonadWriter
Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com>
2013-01-27 20:30:31 GMT
2013-01-27 20:30:31 GMT
I have two suggestions for MonadWriter:
(1) Remove the "Monoid w" constraint from the definition.
The constraints prevent creating new instances of the class that have only an implied monoid. For example, I needed to create a simple writer which always stores the last written element. I had to wrap it into Last, which was a nuisance for users of my library. Without the constraint, my instance would be quite simpler and still satisfying all the laws. There are many other similar use cases, like counting the number of written values (and disregarding their actual content) etc.
The constraint is meant to ensure that instances of that class obey the monad laws. But it's not the responsibility of a type class that its instances satisfy the laws. They could violate them even without this constraints. Instead, this constraint should be specified (and it is) in the definition of their instances.
It has been discussed in haskell-cafe <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-December/thread.html#105088> with arguments for and against.
-- | <at> contained m <at> executes the action <at> m <at> in a contained environment and
-- returns its value and its output. The current output is not modified.
contained :: m a -> m (a, w)
This generalizes "pass" and "listen" and has it's a sort of inverse to "writer" with these simple laws:
writer <=< contained = id
contained . writer = return
It seems as a understandable set of laws that its instances should obey.
It also expresses the same concept as "runWriterT" does, but inside the type class. In particular, for "WriterT" we have
contained :: (Monoid w, Monad m) => WriterT w m a -> WriterT w m (a, w)
contained = lift . runWriterT
Current instances won't be affected as "contained" can be expressed using "pass" and "listen" (and vice versa).
Full details available at
[There "contained" is expressed without the "Monoid w" constraint as suggested in (1). If we keep the constraint, "contained" can be expressed more simply as
containde k = pass (listen k >>= \x -> return (x, const mempty)).
Also, "contained" isn't probably a good name, I just couldn't think of anything better.]
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries <at> haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries