[Haskell-cafe] Finally tagless - stuck with implementation of "lam"

[Jacques Carette]

BTW, here is a more symmetric version of the same code:
    lam f = I . return $ unsafePerformIO . unI . f . I . return

which has a very clear pattern of
  lam f = embed $ extract . f. embed

where 'embed' is often called "return".  Implementations of lam in 
"tagless final" style tend to follow the above pattern of embed/extract, 
each specialized to the particular repr implementation. 

In some cases, one only needs a "context-sensitive" extract, i.e. an 
extract which is only valid in the context of an outer 'embed'.  The 
most important example is code-generation in metaocaml where the 
'compiler' version of lam reads
  let lam f = .<fun x -> .~(f .<x>.)>.
where the .~ does an extract -- but *only* in the context of a 
surrounding code bracket (i.e. .< >. ). 

If there is such a context-sensitive "extract" for the IO monad, i.e. 
something which allows you to pretend you've got a result in IO only 
valid *inside* IO, then you can use that to write a nicer lam. 

I tried all the obvious things with monadic operators to get this done, 
but did not succeed in the time I had.  Maybe Oleg or Ken can.  So don't 
give up hope quite yet!

Jacques

Günther Schmidt wrote:
> Hello Jacques,
>
> thanks, that is disappointing in some way, guess I still have a lot to 
> learn.
>
> Günther
>
>
> Am 05.10.2009, 18:06 Uhr, schrieb Jacques Carette <carette at mcmaster.ca>:
>
>> It's possible, but it's not nice.  You need to be able to "get out of 
>> the monad" to make the types match, i.e.
>>     lam f = I (return $ \x -> let y = I (return x) in
>>                               unsafePerformIO $ unI (f y))
>>
>> The use of IO 'forces' lam to transform its effectful input into an 
>> even more effectful result.  Actually, same goes for any monad used 
>> inside a 'repr'.
>>
>> let_ and fix follow a similar pattern (although you can hide that 
>> somewhat by re-using lam if you wish).
>>
>> Jacques