ṱ̴̹͙̗̣̙ͮ͆͑̊̅h̸̢͔͍̘̭͍̞̹̀ͣ̅͢e̖̠ͫ̒ͦ̅̉̓̓́͟͞ ͑ͥ̌̀̉̐̂͏͚̤͜f͚͔͖̠̣͚ͤ͆ͦ͂͆̄ͥ͌o̶̡̡̝͎͎̥͖̰̭̠̊r̗̯͈̀̚b̢͙̺͚̅͝i̸̡̱̯͔̠̲̿dͧ̈ͭ̑҉͎̮d̆̓̂̏̉̏͌͆̚͝͏̺͓̜̪͓e̎ͯͨ͢҉͙̠͕͍͉n͇̼̞̙͕̮̣͈͓ͨ͐͛̽ͣ̏͆́̓ ̵ͧ̏ͤ͋̌̒͘҉̞̞̱̲͓k͔̂ͪͦ́̀͗͘n͇̰͖̓ͦ͂̇̂͌̐ȯ̸̥͔̩͒̋͂̿͌w̞̟͔̙͇̾͋̅̅̔ͅlͧ͏͎̣̲̖̥ẻ̴̢̢͎̻̹̑͂̆̽ͮ̓͋d̴̪͉̜͓̗̈ͭ̓ͥͥ͞g͊̾̋̊͊̓͑҉͏̭͇̝̰̲̤̫̥e͈̝̖̖̾ͬ̍͢͞

Monads are another level of abstraction on top of applicatives, and allow for much more flexible and expressive computation. Functors => Applicatives => Monads form a hierarchy of abstractions.

## The Monad typeclass

class Applicative m => Monad m where
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

return :: a -> m a
return = pure


The >>= operator is called bind, and applies a function that returns a wrapped value, to another wrapped value.

• The left operand is some monad containing a value a
• the right operand is a function of type a -> m b, ie it takes some a and returns a monad containing something of type b
• The result is a monad of type b

The operator can essentially be thought of as feeding the wrapped value into the function, to get a new wrapped value. x >>= f unwraps the value in x from it, and applies the function to f to it. Understanding bind is key to understanding monads.

return is just the same as pure for applicatives, lifting the value a into some monadic context.

instance Monad Maybe where
Nothing >>= _ = Nothing
Just x  >>= f = f x

Left l >>= _ = Left l
Right r >>= f = f r

pure = Right

xs >>= f = concat (map f xs)


Monads give effects: composing computations sequentially using >>= has an effect. With the State Monad this effect is "mutation". With Maybe and Either the effect is that we may raise a failure at any step. Effects only happen when we want them, implemented by pure functions.

For a type to be a monad, it must satisfy the following laws:

• return a >>= h = h a
• Left identity
• m >>= return = m
• Right identity
• (m >>= f) >>= g = m >>= (\x -> f x >>= g)
• Associativity

## Example: Evaluating an Expression

A type Expr is shown below that represents a mathematical expression, and an eval function to evaluate it. Note that it is actually unsafe and could crash at runtime due to a div by 0 error. The safediv function does this using Maybe.

data Expr = Val Int | Add Expr Expr | Div Expr Expr

eval :: Expr -> Int
eval (Val n)   = n
eval (Add l r) = eval l + eval r
eval (Div l r) = eval l div eval r

safediv :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
safediv x 0 = Nothing
safediv x y = Just (x div y)


If we want to use safediv with eval, we need to change it's type signature. The updated eval is shown below using applicatives to write the function cleanly and propagate any errors:

eval :: Expr -> Maybe Int
eval (Val n) = Just n
eval (Add l r) = (+) <\$> eval l <*> eval r eval (Div l r) = safediv <\$> eval l <*> eval r


If any recursive calls return a Nothing, the entire expression will evaluate to Nothing. Otherwise, the <\$> and <*> will evaluate the expression within the Maybe context. However, this is still wrong as the last expression now has type of Maybe (Maybe Int). This can be fixed using >>=. Note the use of lambdas. eval (Div l r) = eval l >>= \x -> eval r >>= \y -> x safediv y  The Expr type can be extended to include a conditional expression, where If Condition True False. data Expr = Val Int | Add Expr Expr | Div Expr Expr | If Expr Expr Expr eval :: Expr -> Maybe Int eval (Val n) = Just n eval (Add l r) = eval l >>= \x -> eval r >>= \y -> Just (x+y) eval (Div l r) = eval l >>= \x -> eval r >>= \y -> x safediv y eval (If c t f) = ifA <\$> eval c <*> eval t <*> eval f
where ifA b x y = if b /= 0 then x else y


With this definition using applicatives, both branches of the conditional branch are evaluated. If there is an error in the false branch, the whole expression will fail. Here, using bind, the semantics are correct.

haskell
eval' (If c t f) = eval' c >>= \b ->
if b /= 0 then eval t else eval f


## <*> vs >>=

Bind is a much more powerful abstraction than apply:

haskell
<*>  :: m (a -> b) -> m a -> m b
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b


- Apply operates on functions already inside a context
- This function can't determine anything to do with the context
- With a Maybe, it can't determine if the overall expression returns Nothing or not
- Bind takes a function that returns a context, and can therefore can determine more about the result of the overall expression
- It knows if it's going to return Nothing

## do Notation

Notice the pattern of >>= being used with lambdas a fair amount. This can be tidied up with some nice syntactic sugar, called do notation. Rewriting the earlier example:

haskell
eval :: Expr -> Maybe Int
eval (Val n)   = return n
eval (Add l r) = do
x <- eval l
y <- eval r
return (x+y)
eval (Div l r) = do
x <- eval l
y <- eval r
x safediv y


This looks like imperative code, but is actually using monads behind the scenes. The arrows bind the results of the evaluation to some local definition, which can then be referred to further down the block.

- A block must always end with a function call that returns a monad -
- usually return, but safediv is used too
- If any of the calls within the do block shown returns Nothing, the entire block will short-circuit to a Nothing.

## Example: The Writer Monad

The example of Writer as an [applicative](./cs141/applicatives#example-logging) instance can be extended to make it a Monad instance.

haskell
data Writer w a = MkWriter (a,w)

instance Functor (Writer w) where
-- fmap :: (a -> b) -> Writer w a -> Writer w b
fmap f (MkWriter (x,o)) = MkWriter(f x, o)

instance Monoid w => Applicative (Writer w) where
-- pure :: Monoid w => a -> Writer w a
pure x = MkWriter (x, mempty)
-- <*> :: Monoid w => Writer w (a -> b) -> Writer w a -> Writer w b
MkWriter (f,o1) <*> MkWriter (x,o2) = MkWriter (f x, o1 <> o2)

instance Monoid w => Monad (Writer w) where
-- return :: Monoid w => a -> Writer w a
return = MkWriter (x, mempty) --pure
(Writer (x, o1)) >>= f = MkWriter (y, o2 <> o1)
where (MkWriter (y,o2)) = f x


Bind for Writer applies the function to the x value in the writer, then combines the two attached written values, and return the new value from the result of f x along with the combined values.

Now we have a monad instance for the Writer monad, we can rewrite our comp function with do notation:

haskell
comp' :: Expr -> Writer [String] Program
comp' (Val n)    = do
writeLog "compiling a value"
pure [PUSH n]
comp' (Plus l r) = do writeLog "compiling a plus"
pl <- comp l
pr <- comp r
pure (pl ++ pr ++ [ADD])