# [Haskell-cafe] Re: Where do I put the seq?

Ryan Ingram ryani.spam at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 04:18:15 EDT 2009

```On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Peter Verswyvelen<bugfact at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I really wrote this code as an exercise, and it was a good one. Now I
> (or someone) needs to explain why it works.

There's a bit of trickiness, but it's not that hard when you break it down.

Lets look at a simplified version of "test":

test = do
x <- inp
out "hello"
out x
test

Desugaring a bit:

test
= inp >>= \x -> out hello >> out x >> test
= S (\(i:is) -> (is, empty, i))
>>= \x -> S (\is -> (is, singleton "hello", ()))
>>= \_ -> S (\is -> (is, singleton x, ()))
>>= \_ -> test

Now, inlining >>= and simplifying, we get:

test = S (\i0 -> let
(i1, o1, x) = (\(i:is) -> (is, empty, i)) i0
(i2, o2, _) = (i1, singleton "hello", ())
(i3, o3, _) = (i2, singleton x, ())
(i4, o4, res) = step test i3
outputs = o1 `mappend` o2 `mappend` o3 `mappend` o4
in (i4, outputs, res))

The first thing to notice is that when we run "test" by giving it some
input, we *immediately* get a triple back:
(i4, outputs, res)
with the values in the triple being unevaluated thunks.

"res" is _|_; trying to evaluate it will infinite loop.  Similarily
for i4.  But fortunately we never do; getOutput throws them both away.
So the only thing we care about is "outputs".

outputs is infinite as well, but we have hope!  As long as `mappend`
is lazy in its second argument, we might be able to get some data out!

Lets simplify Data.DList a bit:

mappend = (.)
singleton = (:)
empty = id
fromList = (++)
toList = (\$ [])

Now lets try to evaluate (toList outputs):

toList outputs
= (\$ []) (o1 . o2 . o3 . o4)
= o1 . o2 . o3 . o4 \$ []
= o1 (o2 (o3 (o4 [])))

We need to evaluate o1 in order to call it.  There is a possibility
that it is _|_ :
(i1, o1, x) = (\(i:is) -> (is, empty, i)) i0

Therefore
o1 = case i0 of
(i:is) -> empty
[] -> error "pattern match failure"
i1 = case i0 of
(i:is) -> is
[] -> error "pattern match failure"
x = case i0 of
(i:is) -> i
[] -> error "pattern match failure"

So as long as you type a line, "o1" will be "empty" (= id).  But we
don't know that you necessarily will type an input line, so the code
*has* to wait for the line of input from the user, and can't print any
later values.  (This is where you get into some of the craziness of
lazy I/O)

Once you type a line, i0 gets bound to (whatever you type : some lazy
thunk representing the rest of the input) and o1 gets evaluated to id.

toList outputs
= o1 (o2 (o3 (o4 [])))
= id (o2 (o3 (o4 [])))
= o2 (o3 (o4 []))

o2 and o3 are easy:
(i2, o2, _) = (i1, singleton "hello", ())
(i3, o3, _) = (i2, singleton x, ())
therefore
o2 = ("hello" :)
o3 = (x :)

toList outputs
= o2 (o3 (o4 []))
= ("hello":) ( (x:) (o4 []) )
= "hello" : x : (o4 [])

Now we have some data!  We can output these two elements without
evaluating o4 at all!

So we do, and then we need to evaluate o4.  But that just is starting
over; o4 = getOutputs (step test i3).  We do have a different input
(i3 vs. i0), but the rest of the logic is the same, and we keep going
until we get to the end of the input list, at which point the pattern
match failure in "inp" hits us.

> But is this monad really useful? I mean it would be straightforward to write
> this using the ST monad I guess?

It's kind of useful.  I don't think I'd use ST, though.  It's isomorphic to
StateT [String] (Writer (DList String))

> Anyway, the reason why I want this pure code is that even with a console
> based game, I don't want IO in it, since recording the input and replaying
> it is vital to reproduce the actions the user did, and if things go wrong
> (they always do), the log of all input can be used to restore the exact game
> play. Of course you can do the same using imperative techniques and IO
> redirection (which I did for my old games), but with this pure code you
> don't have to worry about other places where IO could be used.

of MonadPrompt; it guarantees that all impure actions go through a
datatype which you can then log.  Check it out!

You can then change the implementation of "what does this impure
action do" without changing any of the logging or gameplay code.  For
example, you could have a "object agent monad" which each character
runs under, that is able to observe parts of the gamestate, and then
write an interpreter that allows the user to play the game (through an
impure I/O interface that draws to the screen) and another interpreter
which runs an AI (through a pure functional or memory-state-based
interface).

-- ryan
```