Applicative functor

From HaskellWiki

Revision as of 14:37, 5 November 2007

1 Example

It has turned out that many applications do not require monad functionality but only those of applicative functors. Monads allow you to run actions depending on the outcomes of earlier actions.

do text <- getLine
   if null text
     then putStrLn "You refuse to enter something?"
     else putStrLn ("You entered " ++ text)

This is obviously necessary in some cases, but in other cases it is disadvantageous.

Consider an extended IO monad which handles automated closing of allocated resources. This is possible with a monad.

openDialog, openWindow :: String -> CleanIO ()
 
liftToCleanup :: IO a -> CleanIO a
 
runAndCleanup :: CleanIO a -> IO a
 
runAndCleanup $
   do text <- liftToCleanup getLine
      if null text
        then openDialog "You refuse to enter something?"
        else openWindow ("You entered " ++ text)

I.e. if the dialog was opened, the dialog must be closed, but not the window. That is, the cleanup procedure depends on the outcomes of earlier actions.

Now consider the slightly different task, where functions shall register initialization routines that shall be run before the actual action takes place. (See the original discussion started by Michael T. Richter in Haskell-Cafe: Practical Haskell Question) This is impossible in the monadic framework.

If you eliminate this dependency, you end up in an applicative functor and there you can do the initialization trick. You could write

initializeAndRun $
liftA2
  (liftToInit getLine)
  (writeToWindow "You requested to open a window")

2 Some advantages of applicative functors

• Code that uses only on the
  Applicative
  interface are more general than ones uses the
  Monad
  interface, because there are more applicative functors than monads.
• Programming with
  Applicative
  has a more applicative/functional feel. Especially for newbies, it may encourage functional style even when programming with effects.

Monad programming with do notation encourages a more sequential & imperative style.

3 How to switch from monads

• Start using
  liftM
  ,
  liftM2
  , etc or
  ap
  where you can, in place of
  do
  /
  (>>=)
  .
• When you notice you're only using those monad methods, then import
  Control.Applicative
  and replace
  return
  with
  pure
  ,
  liftM
  with
  (<$>)
  (or
  fmap
  or
  liftA
  ),
  liftM2
  with
  liftA2
  , etc, and
  ap
  with
  (<*>)
  . If your function signature was
  Monad m => ...
  , change to
  Applicative m => ...
  (and maybe rename
  m
  to
  f
  or whatever).

Category: Glossary