(List home) (Recent threads) (40 other Haskell lists)

**RSS**or**Atom**: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients**here**.**Conventional**: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's**subscribe**address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage**here**.

- Moderate traffic list: up to 30 messages per day
- This list contains about 115,403 messages, beginning Oct 2000
- 7 messages added yesterday

Report the Spam

This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.

Are you sure? yes no

Ad

Hello! Some time ago I wanted to return the escape continuation out of the callCC block, like this: getCC = callCC (\c -> return c) But of course this wouldn't compile. I thought that it would be useful to be able to keep the current continuation and resume it later, like you can in do in scheme. Well, it was easy to do this in Haskell in the (ContT r IO) monad, by using an IORef. But I wasn't able to solve this for all MonadCont monads. After more then year of on-and-off trials, I've finally managed to do this! ;-) import Control.Monad.Cont getCC :: MonadCont m => m (m a) getCC = callCC (\c -> let x = c x in return x) getCC' :: MonadCont m => a -> m (a, a -> m b) getCC' x0 = callCC (\c -> let f x = c (x, f) in return (x0, f)) getCC allows to set a backward "goto label". Here's an example: -- prints "hello!" in an endless loop test :: IO () test = (`runContT` return) $ do jump <- getCC lift (putStrLn "hello!") jump getCC' allows to jump back with arguments: -- prints integers from 0 to 10, then prints finish and ends test' :: IO () test' = (`runContT` return) $ do (x, jumpWith) <- getCC' 0 lift (print x) when (x < 10) (jumpWith (x + 1)) lift (putStrLn "finish") I think this is rather cool! :-) Besides sharing my happiness, I want to ask some questions: - what would be the best names for these functions - is it possible to define a MonadFix instance for Cont / ContT? - do you think it would be a good idea to add them to Control.Monad.Cont? Best regards Tomasz

Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > Some time ago I wanted to return the escape continuation out of the > callCC block, like this: > getCC = callCC (\c -> return c)patterns like this are characteristic of shift/reset -- From http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/MonadCont reset :: (Monad m) => ContT a m a -> ContT r m a reset e = ContT $ \k -> runContT e return >>= k shift :: (Monad m) => ((a -> ContT r m b) -> ContT b m b) -> ContT b m a shift e = ContT $ \k -> runContT (e $ \v -> ContT $ \c -> k v >>= c) return with them, we can implement the same tests, in a slightly de-sugared way, for clarity:> newtype H r m = H (H r m -> ContT r m r) > unH (H x) = x > > -- prints "hello!" in an endless loop > test :: IO () > test = (`runContT` return) $ reset (do > jump <- shift (\f -> f (H f)) > lift (putStrLn "hello!") > unH jump jump) > newtype H' r m a = H' ((a,H' r m a) -> ContT r m ()) > unH' (H' x) = x > > -- prints integers from 0 to 10, then prints finish and ends > test' :: IO () > test' = (`runContT` return) $ > do > reset (do > (x, jumpWith) <- (\x -> shift (\f -> f (x,(H' f)))) 0 > lift (print x) > when (x < 10) (unH' jumpWith ((x + 1),jumpWith))) > lift (putStrLn "finish")Delimited continuations are really cool. The lack of the answer-type polymorphism in ContT will come to bite us in the end: we can't use reset several times in differently-typed contexts (which often means that we can use reset only once in our program). The CC monad transformer (derived from the CC library by Sabry, Dybvig, Peyton-Jones), freely available from http://pobox.com/~oleg/ftp/packages/LogicT.ta... is free from that drawback. BTW, with that monad transformer, the example looks as follows (again, in a de-sugared way, for clarity)> import CC_2CPST > newtype H'' r m a = H'' (CC r m (a,H'' r m a) -> CC r m ()) > unH'' (H'' x) = x > test'' :: IO () > test'' = runCC ( > do > p <- newPrompt > pushPrompt p ( > do > (x, jumpWith) <- (\x -> shiftP p (\f -> f (return (x,(H'' f))))) 0 > lift (print x) > when (x < 10) (unH'' jumpWith (return ((x + 1),jumpWith)))) > lift (putStrLn "finish")) > > shiftP p f = letSubCont p $ \sk -> > pushPrompt p (f (\c -> > pushPrompt p (pushSubCont sk c)))

Hello Tomasz, This stuff is very interesting! At first sight, your definition of getCC seems quite odd, but it can in fact be derived from its implementation in an untyped language.On 7/7/05, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > Some time ago I wanted to return the escape continuation out of the > callCC block, like this: > > getCC = callCC (\c -> return c)We get the error message test124.hs:8:29: Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: t = t -> t1 Expected type: t -> t1 Inferred type: (t -> t1) -> m b Haskell doesn't support infinite types, but we can get close enough by creating a type C m b such that C m b and C m b -> m b become isomorphic: newtype C m b = C { runC :: C m b -> m b } With the help of C we can implement another version of getCC and rewrite the original example. getCC1 :: (MonadCont m) => m (C m b) getCC1 = callCC $ \k -> return (C k) test1 :: ContT r IO () test1 = do jmp <- getCC1 liftIO $ putStrLn "hello1" jmp `runC` jmp -- throw the continuation itself, -- so we can jump to the same point the next time. return () We can move the self-application of jmp into getCC to get the same type signature as your solution, but we still rely on the auxiliary datatype C. getCC2 :: MonadCont m => m (m b) getCC2 = do jmp <- callCC $ \k -> return (C k) return $ jmp `runC` jmp In order to move the function (\jmp -> jmp `runC` jmp) into callCC, the following law, that all instances of MonadCont seem to satisfy, is very helpful. f =<< callCC g === callCC (\k -> f =<< g ((=<<) k . f)) In particular (regarding Functor as superclass of Monad), it follows f `fmap` callCC g === callCC (\k -> f `fmap` g (k . f)) Therefore, getCC2 is equivalent to getCC3 :: MonadCont m => m (m b) getCC3 = callCC $ \k -> return (selfApp $ C (k . selfApp)) where selfApp :: C m b -> m b selfApp jmp = jmp `runC` jmp It is easy to get rid of C here arriving exactly at your definition of getCC.> getCC :: MonadCont m => m (m a) > getCC = callCC (\c -> let x = c x in return x) > getCC' :: MonadCont m => a -> m (a, a -> m b) > getCC' x0 = callCC (\c -> let f x = c (x, f) in return (x0, f))For what it's worth, this can be derived in much the same way from the (not well-typed) getCC' x = callCC $ \k -> return (k, x) using the auxillary type newtype C' m a b = C' { runC' :: (C' m a b, a) -> m b }> > Besides sharing my happiness, I want to ask some questions: > > - is it possible to define a MonadFix instance for Cont / ContT?It must be possible to define something that looks like a MonadFix instance, after all you can define generally recursive functions in languages like scheme and sml which "live in a ContT r IO monad", but this has all kinds of nasty consequences, iirc. Levent Erk?k's thesis suggests (pp. 66) that there's no implementation of mfix that satisfies the purity law. http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/rmb/e...> - do you think it would be a good idea to add them to > Control.Monad.Cont?I think so, because they simplify the use of continuations in an imperative setting and are probably helpful in understanding continuations. Letting continuations escape is quite a common pattern in scheme code, and painful to do in Haskell without your cool trick. I'd also like to have shift and reset functions there :) Best wishes, Thomas

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:05:20PM +0200, Thomas J?ger wrote: > Hello Tomasz,Hello Thomas,> Haskell doesn't support infinite types, but we can get close enough by > creating a type C m b such that C m b and C m b -> m b become > isomorphic: > > newtype C m b = C { runC :: C m b -> m b }Thanks for this tip - I am sure it will help me in the future.> With the help of C we can implement another version of getCC and > rewrite the original example. > > [...] > > We can move the self-application of jmp into getCC to get the same > type signature as your solution, but we still rely on the auxiliary > datatype C. > > [...] > > It is easy to get rid of C here arriving exactly at your definition of getCC.Neat! I didn't know (or didn't thought about) how to systematically derive getCC. Thanks!> > - is it possible to define a MonadFix instance for Cont / ContT? > Levent Erk?k's thesis suggests (pp. 66) that there's no implementation > of mfix that satisfies the purity law. > http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/rmb/e...This is a very interesting reading.> > - do you think it would be a good idea to add them to > > Control.Monad.Cont? > I think so, because they simplify the use of continuations in an > imperative setting and are probably helpful in understanding > continuations. Letting continuations escape is quite a common pattern > in scheme code, and painful to do in Haskell without your cool trick.I'll try to come up with some motivating examples, unless someone who is in power to add these functions is reading this thread and agrees that they are useful... ? Alternatively, we could place them on http://haskell.org/hawiki/MonadCont. Wow! I noticed there is a link to my message already ;-) Best regards Tomasz

Hi Thomas and Tomasz, A late comment about a MonadFix instance for Cont/ContT:Thomas J?ger wrote: > Hello Tomasz, > > This stuff is very interesting! At first sight, your definition of > getCC seems quite odd, but it can in fact be derived from its > implementation in an untyped language. > > On 7/7/05, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: >...>>Besides sharing my happiness, I want to ask some questions: >> >>- is it possible to define a MonadFix instance for Cont / ContT? > > It must be possible to define something that looks like a MonadFix > instance, after all you can define generally recursive functions in > languages like scheme and sml which "live in a ContT r IO monad", but > this has all kinds of nasty consequences, iirc. > > Levent Erk?k's thesis suggests (pp. 66) that there's no implementation > of mfix that satisfies the purity law. > http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/rmb/e...A while ago, I attempted to marry value recursion a la Levent Erk?k with the continuation-monad transformer. It seems possible if the underlying monad has value recursion and references. Interestingly, all mfix properties except left shrinking appear to be valid. There are slides about this (including implementation) at http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc-sli... There is also a draft paper at http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc.pdf I should warn that the paper is still very unfinished. If anyone is interested in picking up the pieces together with me, please get in touch! Cheers, Magnus

```
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:51:59PM +0200, Magnus Carlsson wrote:
> A while ago, I attempted to marry value recursion a la Levent Erk?k with
> the continuation-monad transformer. It seems possible if the underlying
> monad has value recursion and references. Interestingly, all mfix
> properties except left shrinking appear to be valid.
>
> There are slides about this (including implementation) at
>
> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc-sli...
>
> There is also a draft paper at
>
> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc.pdfI've already found your paper and played with the implementation :-)
I was stupid to think that with MonadCont+MonadFix+getCC it would be
possible to do forward jumps, but of course it doesn't work because of
the strictness law.
Best regards
Tomasz
```

Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:51:59PM +0200, Magnus Carlsson wrote: > >>A while ago, I attempted to marry value recursion a la Levent Erk?k with >>the continuation-monad transformer. It seems possible if the underlying >>monad has value recursion and references. Interestingly, all mfix >>properties except left shrinking appear to be valid. >> >>There are slides about this (including implementation) at >> >> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc-sli... >> >>There is also a draft paper at >> >> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~magnus/mdo-callcc.pdf > > > I've already found your paper and played with the implementation :-):-)> I was stupid to think that with MonadCont+MonadFix+getCC it would be > possible to do forward jumps, but of course it doesn't work because of > the strictness law.I would expect forward jumps to work. For example, consider callcc (\k -> mfix (\v -> E)) where we assume that E is an expression in which k and v are free. Then it would be OK for E to invoke k and thereby jump "forward". In this case, the recursive value (bound to v) is simply bottom. Moreover, suppose E in turn captures the current continuation and gives it as an argument to k. Then, it is possible to jump back inside E again at a later point. E might in this case return a non-bottom value, which also would be the value of v. Cheers, Magnus

Hi, Sorry, I have to do a small correction to an earlier post of mine.On 7/9/05, I wrote: > In order to move the function (\jmp -> jmp `runC` jmp) into callCC, > the following law, that all instances of MonadCont seem to satisfy, is > very helpful. > > f =<< callCC g === callCC (\k -> f =<< g ((=<<) k . f))This law is in fact only satisfied for some monads (QuickCheck suggests Cont r and ContT r m). A counterexample for the reader transfomer: type M = ReaderT Bool (Cont Bool) f :: a -> M Bool f _ = ask g :: (Bool -> M a) -> M a g k = local not $ k True run :: M Bool -> Bool run (ReaderT m) = m True `runCont` id Now, run (f =<< callCC g) ==> True run (callCC (\k -> f =<< g ((=<<) k . f))) ==> False> In particular (regarding Functor as superclass of Monad), it follows > > f `fmap` callCC g === callCC (\k -> f `fmap` g (k . f))This law (the one I actually used) is satisfied (again, only according to QuickCheck) by every monad I checked. Thomas

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0200, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > Hello! > > Some time ago I wanted to return the escape continuation out of the > callCC block, like this: > > getCC = callCC (\c -> return c) > > But of course this wouldn't compile. > > I thought that it would be useful to be able to keep the current > continuation and resume it later, like you can in do in scheme. Well, > it was easy to do this in Haskell in the (ContT r IO) monad, by using an > IORef. But I wasn't able to solve this for all MonadCont monads. > > After more then year of on-and-off trials, I've finally managed to do > this! ;-) > > import Control.Monad.Cont > > getCC :: MonadCont m => m (m a) > getCC = callCC (\c -> let x = c x in return x)I was inspired by this message, and thought I could simply this further as getCC = callCC (\c -> let x = c x in x) After all, c can give us a MonadCont with any result type. The first problem is that callCC is not polymorphic enough, but that is easily fixed[1] (concerning myself just with Cont): ccc :: ((a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) -> Cont r a) -> Cont r a ccc f = Cont (\k -> runCont (f (\x -> Cont (\_ -> k x))) k) ccc is just callCC with a more polymorphic type. But still, try as I might, I could not get getCC to typecheck, no matter what type annotations I used. This works: getCC' :: Cont r (Cont r a) getCC' = ccc (\c -> let x = c x in c x) But eg getCC :: Cont r (Cont r a) getCC = ccc (\(c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) -> let x :: forall b. Cont r b = c x in x) gives Couldn't match `forall b. Cont r a -> Cont r b' against `forall b. Cont r a -> Cont r b' In a lambda abstraction: \ (c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) -> let x :: forall b. Cont r b = c x in x In the first argument of `ccc', namely `(\ (c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) -> let x :: forall b. Cont r b = ... in x)' In the definition of `getCC'': getCC' = ccc (\ (c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) -> let x :: forall b. Cont r b = ... in x) for which I have no riposte. Is this a bug? Is there any way to type this expression? (I am using ghc 6.4.) Andrew [1] http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ContinuationsDo...

```
Hello Andrew,On 7/25/05, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> getCC :: Cont r (Cont r a)
> getCC = ccc (\(c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) ->
> let x :: forall b. Cont r b = c x in x)
>
> gives
>
> [Error]ghc-6.2 accepts this:
getCC :: Cont r (Cont r a)
getCC = ccc (\(c :: Cont r a -> (forall b. Cont r b)) ->
let x :: forall b. Cont r b; x = c x in c x)
ghc-6.4/6.5 will also give the mysterious error above, but the
following works fine, thanks to scoped type variables:
getCC :: forall a r. Cont r (Cont r a)
getCC = ccc (\c ->
let x :: forall b. Cont r b; x = c x in x)
> for which I have no riposte. Is this a bug?
I would think so. I can't find anything in the documentation that
disallows such polymorphic type annotations.
Thomas
```

Ad