Ryan Ingram ryani.spam at gmail.com
Wed Dec 24 17:59:33 EST 2008

```On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Martijn van Steenbergen
<martijn at van.steenbergen.nl> wrote:
> mappend :: (Monoid a) => a -> a -> a
> (<*>) :: (Applicative f) => f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
>
> mappend takes two arguments of the same type and produces a value of that
> same type. <*>'s arguments and result types are all different. Therefore, I
> don't think you can just glue applicative functors together with <*> like
> you can do with mappend.

That's true, but it's not that hard to make a variant where you *can*
glue things together.  You just need to play with the types a tiny
bit:

> (<*>) :: Applicative f => f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

So, lets say the first argument to (<*>) has already been given.  Now
you need an (f a) for the second argument, and you want to be able to
repeat this process.  Well, something that is quite similar to having
a value of type a is having a function that needs some additional
value to give you a value of type a:

> (<.>) :: Applicative f => f (a -> b) -> f (x -> a) -> f (x -> b)
> (<.>) = liftA2 (.)

It's now possible to define return and bind; first I am going to
redefine AF slightly for reasons which will be clear soon.

> newtype AF f x y a = AF { runAF :: (f (y -> x), a) }

> returnAF :: Applicative f => a -> AF f x x a
> returnAF a = AF (pure id, a)

> bindAF :: Applicative f => AF f z y a -> (a -> AF f y x b) -> AF f z x b
> bindAF m f = let
>     (yz, a) = runAF m
>     (xy, b) = runAF (f a)
>     in AF (yz <.> xy, b)

Now, this type still isn't a monad; its type changes during bind.  But

>     ret :: a -> m x x a
>     bind :: m x y a -> (a -> m y z b) -> m x z b

Given an indexed monad m, the remaining type arguments:
m pre post val
represent a precondition on the value, a post condition, and the held
value.  This class is very useful for threading *type-level* effects
value-level effects.  (See Oleg's articles at
implementation at
there's a use of it in Control.Coroutine)

AF is trivially an instance of this type:

> instance Applicative f => IndexedMonad (AF f) where
>     ret = returnAF
>     bind = bindAF

You can then come up with some simple observation functions:

> evalAF :: Applicative f => AF f x () a -> (f x, a)
> evalAF = runAF >>> first ((\$ ()) <\$>)

The dual is also potentially useful, where you use (flip (<.>)) instead.

I'm not sure if this is useful for Jeremy's goal, but it's an
interesting direction to explore.

-- ryan

>
> Ryan Ingram wrote:
>>
>> I think that there's no solution for your problem as stated, besides
>> the no-implicit-prelude path.
>>
>> But to see one obvious reason why this is the case: can you tell me
>> what the type of "returnAF" is?
>>
>> Also, one of the monad laws is
>>   m >>= return   =   m
>>
>> I don't see how this can possibly be the case with the definition of
>> bindAF you have given.
>>
>>  -- ryan
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jeremy at n-heptane.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I want to make a Monad which is almost exactly like the Writer monad,
>>> except instead of using mappend to glue Monoids together, it uses <*>
>>> to glue applicative functors together.
>>>
>>> Here is the code:
>>>
>>> import Control.Applicative
>>> import Data.Monoid
>>>
>>> -- * Sample Implementation of the Writer Monad
>>>
>>> data Writer w a = Writer { runWriter :: (w, a) }
>>>
>>> instance (Monoid w) => Monad (Writer w) where
>>>   return a = Writer (mempty, a)
>>>   (>>=) = bindWriter
>>>
>>> bindWriter :: (Monoid w) => Writer w a -> (a -> Writer w b) -> Writer w b
>>> bindWriter (Writer (w,a)) f =
>>>   let (Writer (w', b)) = f a
>>>   in Writer (w `mappend` w', b)
>>>
>>> -- * Sample Implementation of the Applicative Functor Monad
>>>
>>> data AF af a = AF { runAF :: (af, a) }
>>>
>>> bindAF :: (Applicative f) => AF (f (a -> b)) x -> (x -> AF (f a) y) -> AF
>>> (f b) y
>>> bindAF (AF (f, x)) g =
>>>   let (AF (a, y)) = g x
>>>   in AF (f <*> a, y)
>>>
>>> -- instance (Applicative f) => Monad (AF (f ...
>>>
>>> As you can see, the similarity is striking. Alas, AF and bindAF do not
>>> quite have the right type signatures to be used for an instance of the
>>> Monad class. Is there some clever work-around I missing? (Aside from,
>>> -fno-implicit-prelude).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> - jeremy
>>> _______________________________________________