问题
This recent SO question prompted me to write an unsafe and pure emulation of the ST monad in Haskell, a slightly modified version of which you can see below:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving, RankNTypes #-}
import Control.Monad.Trans.State
import GHC.Prim (Any)
import Unsafe.Coerce (unsafeCoerce)
import Data.List
newtype ST s a = ST (State ([Any], Int) a) deriving (Functor, Applicative, Monad)
newtype STRef s a = STRef Int deriving Show
newSTRef :: a -> ST s (STRef s a)
newSTRef a = ST $ do
(env, i) <- get
put (unsafeCoerce a : env, i + 1)
pure (STRef i)
update :: [a] -> (a -> a) -> Int -> [a]
update as f i = case splitAt i as of
(as, b:bs) -> as ++ f b : bs
_ -> as
readSTRef :: STRef s a -> ST s a
readSTRef (STRef i) = ST $ do
(m, i') <- get
pure (unsafeCoerce (m !! (i' - i - 1)))
modifySTRef :: STRef s a -> (a -> a) -> ST s ()
modifySTRef (STRef i) f = ST $
modify $ \(env, i') -> (update env (unsafeCoerce f) (i' - i - 1), i')
runST :: (forall s. ST s a) -> a
runST (ST s) = evalState s ([], 0)
It would be good if we could present the usual ST monad API without unsafeCoerce
. Specifically, I'd like to formalize the reasons why the usual GHC ST monad and the above emulation works. It seems to me that they work because:
- Any
STRef s a
with the rights
tag must have been created in the current ST computation, sincerunST
ensures that different states can't be mixed up. - The previous point together with the fact that ST computations can only ever extend the environment of references implies that any
STRef s a
with the rights
tag refers to a valida
-typed location in the environment (after possibly weakening the reference at runtime).
The above points enable a remarkably proof-obligation-free programming experience. Nothing really comes close in safe and pure Haskell that I can think of; we can do a rather poor imitation with indexed state monads and heterogeneous lists, but that doesn't express any of the above points and thus requires proofs at each use site of STRef
-s.
I'm at a loss how we could formalize this properly in Agda. For starters, "allocated in this computation" is tricky enough. I thought about representing STRef
-s as proofs that a particular allocation is contained in a particular ST
computation, but that seems to result in an endless recursion of type indexing.
回答1:
Here's some form of a solution done by postulating a parametricity theorem. It also ensures that the postulate does not get in the way of computation.
http://code.haskell.org/~Saizan/ST/ST.agda
"darcs get http://code.haskell.org/~Saizan/ST/" for the full source
I'm not happy about the closed universe of types but it's the easy way to tailor the parametricity theorem to what we actually need.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34023712/modeling-the-st-monad-in-agda