Skip to main content

Home/ Haskell/ Group items matching "python" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Javier Neira

Understanding Monads Via Python List Comprehensions « All Unkept - 0 views

lukeplant.me.uk/...via-python-list-comprehensions

haskell monads tutorial python

shared by Javier Neira on 02 Mar 10 - Cached
  • But here we have taken it to a higher level -- the Monad interface is like an abstraction of any kind of container.
  • This in turn leads to the concept that a monadic value represents a computation -- a method for computing a value, bound together with its input value.
  • Writing monads is hard, but it pays off as using them in Haskell is surprisingly easy, and allows you to do some very powerful things.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • One of them you have seen explicitly -- it's the 'return' method, responsible for packing things up into the monad. The other is called 'bind' or '>>=', and it does the 'unpacking' involved with the <- arrow in the do notation.
  • the 'bind' method doesn't really unpack and return the data. Instead, it is defined in such a way that it handles all unpacking 'internally', and you have to provide functions that always have to return data inside the monad.
  • It looks very much like 'unpack this data from the monad so I can use it', so it helps conceptually. In fact, together with the rest of the body of the 'do' block it forms an anonymous lambda function,
Javier Neira

A Neighborhood of Infinity: The IO Monad for People who Simply Don't Care - 0 views

blog.sigfpe.com/...or-people-who-simply-dont.html

haskell io monad basics intro

shared by Javier Neira on 22 Dec 09 - No Cached
  • Many programming languages make a distinction between expressions and commands.
  • Like other languages it makes the distinction, and like other languages it has its own slightly idiosyncratic notion of what the difference is. The IO monad is just a device to help make this distinction.
  • There is no room for anything like a print command here because a print command doesn't return a value, it produces output as a side-effect
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • It's easy to use: you just write do and then follow it by an indented list of commands. Here's a complete Haskell program:
  • Note also that commands take arguments that can be expressions. So print (2*x) is a command, but 2*x is an expression. Again, little different from a language like Python.
  • So here's an interesting feature of Haskell: commands can return values. But a command that returns a value is different from an expression with a value.
  • We have to use <- instead of let ... = ... to get a returned value out of a command. It's a pretty simple rule, the only hassle is you have to remember what's a command and what's a function.
  • get2Lines = do line1 <- getLine line2 <- getLine return (line1,line2)
  • To introduce a list of commands, use do.To return a value from a command, use return.To assign a name to an expression inside a do block use let.To assign a name to the result of a command, use <-.
  • what's a command and what's an expression? If it has any chance of doing I/O it must be a command, otherwise it's probably an expression.
  • Everything in Haskell has a type, even commands. In general, if a command returns a value of type a then the command itself is of type IO a.
  • eturn is simply a function of type a -> IO a that converts a value of type a to a command of type IO a.
  • 5. The type of a sequence of commands is the type of the last line.
  • The type of an if statement is the type of its branches. So if you want an if statement inside a do block, it needs to be a command, and so its branches need to be commands also. So it's
  • If something is of type IO a then it's a command returning an value of type a. Otherwise it's an expression. That's the rule.
  • following the rules above it's completely impossible to put an executed command inside an expression.
  • As the only way to do I/O is with commands, that means you have no way to find out what Haskell is doing inside expressions.
  • If the type isn't IO a, then you can sleep at night in the confidence that there are no side effects.
  • One last thing. Much of what I've said above is false. But what I hope I have done is describe a subset of Haskell in which you can start some I/O programming without having a clue what a monad is.
  • The idea of capturing imperative computations in a type of (immutable) values is lovely. And so is the general pattern we call "monad".
  • main = do return 1 print "Hello"
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page