问题
Context: This question is specifically in reference to Control.Lens (version 3.9.1 at the time of this writing)
I've been using the lens library and it is very nice to be able to read and write to a piece (or pieces for traversals) of a structure. I then had a though about whether a lens could be used against an external database. Of course, I would then need to execute in the IO Monad. So to generalize:
Question:
Given a getter, (s -> m a) and an setter (b -> s -> m t) where m is a Monad, is possible to construct Lens s t a b where the Functor of the lens is now contained to also be a Monad? Would it still be possible to compose these with (.) with other "purely functional" lenses?
Example:
Could I make Lens (MVar a) (MVar b) a b using readMVar and withMVar?
Alternative:
Is there an equivalent to Control.Lens for containers in the IO monad such as MVar or IORef (or STDIN)?
回答1:
I've been thinking about this idea for some time, which I'd call mutable lenses. So far, I haven't made it into a package, let me know, if you'd benefit from it.
First let's recall the generalized van Laarhoven Lenses (after some imports we'll need later):
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import qualified Data.ByteString as BS
import Data.Functor.Constant
import Data.Functor.Identity
import Data.Traversable (Traversable)
import qualified Data.Traversable as T
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.STM
import Control.Concurrent.STM.TVar
type Lens s t a b = forall f . (Functor f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> f t)
type Lens' s a = Lens s s a a
we can create such a lens from a "getter" and a "setter" as
mkLens :: (s -> a) -> (s -> b -> t) -> Lens s t a b
mkLens g s f x = fmap (s x) (f (g x))
and get a "getter"/"setter" from a lens back as
get :: Lens s t a b -> (s -> a)
get l = getConstant . l Constant
set :: Lens s t a b -> (s -> b -> t)
set l x v = runIdentity $ l (const $ Identity v) x
as an example, the following lens accesses the first element of a pair:
_1 :: Lens' (a, b) a
_1 = mkLens fst (\(x, y) x' -> (x', y))
-- or directly: _1 f (a,c) = (\b -> (b,c)) `fmap` f a
Now how a mutable lens should work? Getting some container's content involves a monadic action. And setting a value doesn't change the container, it remains the same, just as a mutable piece of memory does. So the result of a mutable lens will have to be monadic, and instead of the return type container t we'll have just (). Moreover, the Functor constraint isn't enough, since we need to interleave it with monadic computations. Therefore, we'll need Traversable:
type MutableLensM m s a b
= forall f . (Traversable f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> m (f ()))
type MutableLensM' m s a
= MutableLensM m s a a
(Traversable is to monadic computations what Functor is to pure computations).
Again, we create helper functions
mkLensM :: (Monad m) => (s -> m a) -> (s -> b -> m ())
-> MutableLensM m s a b
mkLensM g s f x = g x >>= T.mapM (s x) . f
mget :: (Monad m) => MutableLensM m s a b -> s -> m a
mget l s = liftM getConstant $ l Constant s
mset :: (Monad m) => MutableLensM m s a b -> s -> b -> m ()
mset l s v = liftM runIdentity $ l (const $ Identity v) s
As an example, let's create a mutable lens from a TVar within STM:
alterTVar :: MutableLensM' STM (TVar a) a
alterTVar = mkLensM readTVar writeTVar
These lenses are one-sidedly directly composable with Lens, for example
alterTVar . _1 :: MutableLensM' STM (TVar (a, b)) a
Notes:
Mutable lenses could be made more powerful if we allow that the modifying function to include effects:
type MutableLensM2 m s a b = (Traversable f) => (a -> m (f b)) -> (s -> m (f ())) type MutableLensM2' m s a = MutableLensM2 m s a a mkLensM2 :: (Monad m) => (s -> m a) -> (s -> b -> m ()) -> MutableLensM2 m s a b mkLensM2 g s f x = g x >>= f >>= T.mapM (s x)However, it has two major drawbacks:
- It isn't composable with pure
Lens. - Since the inner action is arbitrary, it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot by mutating this (or other) lens during the mutating operation itself.
- It isn't composable with pure
There are other possibilities for monadic lenses. For example, we can create a monadic copy-on-write lens that preserves the original container (just as
Lensdoes), but where the operation involves some monadic action:type LensCOW m s t a b = forall f . (Traversable f) => (a -> f b) -> (s -> m (f t))I've made jLens - a Java library for mutable lenses, but the API is of course far from being as nice as Haskell lenses.
回答2:
No, you can not constrain the "Functor of the lens" to also be a Monad. The type for a Lens requires that it be compatible with all Functors:
type Lens s t a b = forall f. Functor f => (a -> f b) -> s -> f t
This reads in English something like: A Lens is a function, which, for all types f where f is a Functor, takes an (a -> f b) and returns an s -> f t. The key part of that is that it must provide such a function for every Functor f, not just some subset of them that happen to be Monads.
Edit:
You could make a Lens (MVar a) (MVar b) a b, since none of s t a, or b are constrained. What would the types on the getter and setter needed to construct it be then? The type of the getter would be (MVar a -> a), which I believe could only be implemented as \_ -> undefined, since there's nothing that extracts the value from an MVar except as IO a. The setter would be (MVar a -> b -> MVar b), which we also can't define since there's nothing that makes an MVar except as IO (MVar b).
This suggests that instead we could instead make the type Lens (MVar a) (IO (MVar b)) (IO a) b. This would be an interesting avenue to pursue further with some actual code and a compiler, which I don't have right now. To combine that with other "purely functional" lenses, we'd probably want some sort of lift to lift the lens into a monad, something like liftLM :: (Monad m) => Lens s t a b -> Lens s (m t) (m a) b.
Code that compiles (2nd edit):
In order to be able to use the Lens s t a b as a Getter s a we must have s ~ t and a ~ b. This limits our type of useful lenses lifted over some Monad to the widest type for s and t and the widest type for a and b. If we substitute b ~ a into out possible type we would have Lens (MVar a) (IO (MVar a)) (IO a) a, but we still need MVar a ~ IO (MVar a) and IO a ~ a. We take the wides of each of these types, and choose Lens (IO (MVar a)) (IO (MVar a)) (IO a) (IO a), which Control.Lens.Lens lets us write as Lens' (IO (MVar a)) (IO a). Following this line of reasoning, we can make a complete system for combining "purely functional" lenses with lenses on monadic values. The operation to lift a "purely function" lens, liftLensM, then has the type (Monad m) => Lens' s a -> LensF' m s a, where LensF' f s a ~ Lens' (f s) (f a).
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
module Main (
main
) where
import Control.Lens
import Control.Concurrent.MVar
main = do
-- Using MVar
putStrLn "Ordinary MVar"
var <- newMVar 1
output var
swapMVar var 2
output var
-- Using mvarLens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO"
value <- (return var) ^. mvarLens
putStrLn $ show value
set mvarLens (return 3) (return var)
output var
-- Debugging lens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs"
value <- readM (debug mvarLens) var
putStrLn $ show value
setM (debug mvarLens) 4 var
output var
-- Debugging crazy box lens
putStrLn ""
putStrLn "MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs through a Box that's been lifted to LensF' IO that also debugs"
value <- readM ((debug mvarLens) . (debug (liftLensM boxLens))) var
putStrLn $ show value
setM ((debug mvarLens) . (debug (liftLensM boxLens))) (Box 5) var
output var
where
output = \v -> (readMVar v) >>= (putStrLn . show)
-- Types to write higher lenses easily
type LensF f s t a b = Lens (f s) (f t) (f a) (f b)
type LensF' f s a = Lens' (f s) (f a)
type GetterF f s a = Getter (f s) (f a)
type SetterF f s t a b = Setter (f s) (f t) (f a) (f b)
-- Lenses for MVars
setMVar :: IO (MVar a) -> IO a -> IO (MVar a)
setMVar ioVar ioValue = do
var <- ioVar
value <- ioValue
swapMVar var value
return var
getMVar :: IO (MVar a) -> IO a
getMVar ioVar = do
var <- ioVar
readMVar var
-- (flip (>>=)) readMVar
mvarLens :: LensF' IO (MVar a) a
mvarLens = lens getMVar setMVar
-- Lift a Lens' to a Lens' on monadic values
liftLensM :: (Monad m) => Lens' s a -> LensF' m s a
liftLensM pureLens = lens getM setM
where
getM mS = do
s <- mS
return (s^.pureLens)
setM mS mValue = do
s <- mS
value <- mValue
return (set pureLens value s)
-- Output when a Lens' is used in IO
debug :: (Show a) => LensF' IO s a -> LensF' IO s a
debug l = lens debugGet debugSet
where
debugGet ioS = do
value <- ioS^.l
putStrLn $ show $ "Getting " ++ (show value)
return value
debugSet ioS ioValue = do
value <- ioValue
putStrLn $ show $ "Setting " ++ (show value)
set l (return value) ioS
-- Easier way to use lenses in a monad (if you don't like writing return for each argument)
readM :: (Monad m) => GetterF m s a -> s -> m a
readM l s = (return s) ^. l
setM :: (Monad m) => SetterF m s t a b -> b -> s -> m t
setM l b s = set l (return b) (return s)
-- Another example lens
newtype Boxed a = Box {
unBox :: a
} deriving Show
boxLens :: Lens' a (Boxed a)
boxLens = lens Box (\_ -> unBox)
This code produces the following output:
Ordinary MVar
1
2
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO
2
3
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs
"Getting 3"
3
"Setting 4"
4
MVar accessed through a LensF' IO that also debugs through a Box that's been lifted to LensF' IO that also debugs
"Getting 4"
"Getting Box {unBox = 4}"
Box {unBox = 4}
"Setting Box {unBox = 5}"
"Getting 4"
"Setting 5"
5
There's probably a better way to write liftLensM without resorting to using lens, (^.), set and do notation. Something seems wrong about building lenses by extracting the getter and setter and calling lens on a new getter and setter.
I wasn't able to figure out how to reuse a lens as both a getter and a setter. readM (debug mvarLens) and setM (debug mvarLens) both work just fine, but any construct like 'let debugMVarLens = debug mvarLens' loses either the fact it works as a Getter, the fact it works as a Setter, or the knowledge that Int is an instance of show so it can me used for debug. I'd love to see a better way of writing this part.
回答3:
I had the same problem. I tried the methods in Petr and Cirdec's answers but never got to the point I wanted to. Started working on the problem, and at the end, I published the references library on hackage with a generalization of lenses.
I followed the idea of the yall library to parameterize the references with monad types. As a result there is an mvar reference in Control.Reference.Predefined. It is an IO reference, so an access to the referenced value is done in an IO action.
There are also other applications of this library, it is not restricted to IO. An additional feature is to add references (so adding _1 and _2 tuple accessors will give a both traversal, that accesses both fields). It can also be used to release resources after accessing them, so it can be used to manipulate files safely.
The usage is like this:
test =
do result <- newEmptyMVar
terminator <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO $ (result ^? mvar) >>= print >> (mvar .= ()) terminator >> return ()
hello <- newMVar (Just "World")
forkIO $ ((mvar & just & _tail & _tail) %~= ('_':) $ hello) >> return ()
forkIO $ ((mvar & just & element 1) .= 'u' $ hello) >> return ()
forkIO $ ((mvar & just) %~= ("Hello" ++) $ hello) >> return ()
x <- runMaybeT $ hello ^? (mvar & just)
mvar .= x $ result
terminator ^? mvar
The operator & combines lenses, ^? is generalized to handle references of any monad, not just a referenced value that may not exist. The %~= operator is an update of a monadic reference with a pure function.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18794745/can-i-make-a-lens-with-a-monad-constraint