Haskell gets a lot of flack because it has no built-in support for state and mutation. Consequently, if we want to bake a stateful apple pie in Haskell we must first create a whole universe of stateful operations. However, this principled approach has paid off and now Haskell programmers enjoy more elegant, concise, and powerful imperative code than you can find even in self-described imperative languages.
Lenses
Your ticket to elegant code is the lens library. You define your data types as usual, but you prefix each field with an underscore. For example, I can define a Game:
data Game = Game
{ _score :: Int
, _units :: [Unit]
, _boss :: Unit
} deriving (Show)
... full of Units:
data Unit = Unit
{ _health :: Int
, _position :: Point
} deriving (Show)
... whose locations are represented by Points:
data Point = Point
{ _x :: Double
, _y :: Double
} deriving (Show)
We prefix these fields with an underscore because we will not be using them directly. Instead, we will use them to build lenses, which are much more pleasant to work with.
We can build these lenses in two ways. Our first option is to define lenses manually using the lens convenience function from Control.Lens. For example, we can define a score lens to replace the _score field accessor:
import Control.Lens
score :: Lens' Game Int
score = lens _score (\game v -> game { _score = v })
A Lens is like a map which you use to navigate complex data types. We use the above score lens to navigate from our Game type to its _score field.
The type reflects where we begin and end: Lens' Game Int means we must begin on a value of type Game and end on a value of type Int (the score, in this case). Similarly, our other lenses will clearly indicate their starting and ending points in their types:
units :: Lens' Game [Unit]
units = lens _units (\game v -> game { _units = v })
boss :: Lens' Game Unit
boss = lens _boss (\game v -> game { _boss = v })
health :: Lens' Unit Int
health = lens _health (\unit v -> unit { _health = v })
position :: Lens' Unit Point
position = lens _position (\unit v -> unit { _position = v })
x :: Lens' Point Double
x = lens _x (\point v -> point { _x = v })
y :: Lens' Point Double
y = lens _y (\point v -> point { _y = v })
However, we don't have to write out all this boilerplate if we're lazy. Our second option is to use Template Haskell to define all these lenses for us:
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
data Game = Game
{ _score :: Int
, _units :: [Unit]
, _boss :: Unit
} deriving (Show)
data Unit = Unit
{ _health :: Int
, _position :: Point
} deriving (Show)
data Point = Point
{ _x :: Double
, _y :: Double
} deriving (Show)
makeLenses ''Game
makeLenses ''Unit
makeLenses ''Point
Just remember that Template Haskell requires these makeLenses declarations to go after your data types.
Initial State
The next thing we need is a test initial game state:
initialState :: Game
initialState = Game
{ _score = 0
, _units =
[ Unit
{ _health = 10
, _position = Point { _x = 3.5, _y = 7.0 }
}
, Unit
{ _health = 15
, _position = Point { _x = 1.0, _y = 1.0 }
}
, Unit
{ _health = 8
, _position = Point { _x = 0.0, _y = 2.1 }
}
]
, _boss = Unit
{ _health = 100
, _position = Point { _x = 0.0, _y = 0.0 }
}
}
We've enlisted three valiant heroes to slay the dungeon boss. Let the battle begin!
First Steps
Now we can use our lenses! Let's create a routine for our warriors to strike at the boss:
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class
import Control.Monad.Trans.State
strike :: StateT Game IO ()
strike = do
lift $ putStrLn "*shink*"
boss.health -= 10
strike prints an evocative sound to the console, then decrements the boss's health by 10 hit points.
strike's type indicates that it operates within the StateT Game IO monad. You can think of this as a DSL where we layer our pure game state (i.e. StateT Game) on top of side effects (i.e. IO) so that we can both mutate our game and also print cute battle effects to the console. All you have to remember is that any time we need side effects, we will use lift to invoke them.
We'll test out strike in ghci. In order to run strike, we must supply it with an initialState:
>>> execStateT strike initialState
*shink*
Game {_score = 0, _units = [Unit {_health = 10, _position = Poin
t {_x = 3.5, _y = 7.0}},Unit {_health = 15, _position = Point {_
x = 1.0, _y = 1.0}},Unit {_health = 8, _position = Point {_x = 0
.0, _y = 2.1}}], _boss = Unit {_health = 90, _position = Point {
_x = 0.0, _y = 0.0}}}
execStateT takes our stateful code and an initial state, and then runs that code to produce a new state. ghci automatically shows the return value as a convenience so we can inspect the newly returned state. The output is a bit of a mess, but if you strain your eyes you can see that the boss now only has 90 health.
We can view this more easily by storing the new state in a variable:
>>> newState <- execStateT strike initialState
*shink*
... and then we can query newState for the part we actually care about:
>>> newState^.boss.health
90
Composition
This syntax very strongly resembles imperative and object-oriented programming:
boss.health -= 10
What is going on here? Haskell is decidely not a multi-paradigm language, yet we have what appears to be multi-paradigm code.
Amazingly, nothing on that line is a built-in language feature!
- boss and health are just the lenses we defined above* (-=) is an infix function* (.) is function composition from the Haskell Prelude!
Wait, (.) is function composition? Really?
This is where the lens magic comes in. Lenses are actually ordinary functions, and our "multi-paradigm" code is actually functions all the way down!
In fact, Lens' a b is actually a type synonym for a certain type of higher-order function:
type Lens' a b =
forall f . (Functor f) => (b -> f b) -> (a -> f a)
You don't need to understand the details of that. Just remember that Lens' a b is a higher-order function that accepts a function of type (b -> f b) as an argument, and returns a new function of type (a -> f a). The Functor part is the theoretically-inspired "magic".
Armed with that knowledge, let's make sure the types check out by expanding out the Lens' type synonyms for boss and health
boss :: Lens' Game Unit
-- expands to:
boss :: (Functor f) => (Unit -> f Unit) -> (Game -> f Game)
health :: Lens' Unit Int
-- expands to:
health :: (Functor f) => (Int -> f Int) -> (Unit -> f Unit)
Now let's review the definition of function composition:
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
(f . g) x = f (g x)
Notice that if we specialize our type variables to:
a ~ (Int -> f Int)
b ~ (Unit -> f Unit)
c ~ (Game -> f Game)
... then this has exactly the right type to compose our two lenses:
(.) :: ((Unit -> f Unit) -> (Game -> f Game))
-> ((Int -> f Int ) -> (Unit -> f Unit))
-> ((Int -> f Int ) -> (Game -> f Game))
If we put the Lens' type synonyms back in, we get:
(.) :: Lens' Game Unit -> Lens' Unit Int -> Lens' Game Int
boss . health :: Lens' Game Int
So function composition is also lens composition! In fact, lenses form a category where (.) is the category's composition operator and the identity function id is also the identity lens:
(.) :: Lens' x y -> Lens' y z -> Lens' x z
id :: Lens' x x
What's so beautiful about this is that Haskell lets us remove the spaces around the function composition operator so that it looks exactly like object-oriented accessor notation!
Categories make it really easy to connect and group components on the fly. For example, if I anticipate that I will be modifying the Boss's health frequently, I can just define a composite lens:
bossHP :: Lens' Game Int
bossHP = boss.health
... and now I can use it wherever I previously used boss.health:
strike :: StateT Game IO ()
strike = do
lift $ putStrLn "*shink*"
bossHP -= 10
... or similarly use it as an accessor:
>>> newState^.bossHP
90
Traversals
Lenses are grounded in some really elegant theory, and as a result they get a lot of things right that imperative languages normally don't!
For example, let's say that our boss is a dragon and breathes fire, which damages all heroes. Using lenses, I can decrement the entire party's health using a single instruction:
fireBreath :: StateT Game IO ()
fireBreath = do
lift $ putStrLn "*rawr*"
units.traversed.health -= 3
This makes use of a new lens!
traversed :: Traversal' [a] a
traversed lets us "dig in" to the values in a list so that we can manipulate them as a single unit instead of manually looping over the list. However, this time the type is a Traversal' instead of a Lens'.
A Traversal is a like a Lens' except weaker:
type Traversal' a b =
forall f . (Applicative f) => (b -> f b) -> (a -> f a)
If you compose Lens' with a Traversal', you get the weaker of the two: a Traversal'. This works no matter which order you compose them in:
(.) :: Lens' a b -> Traversal' b c -> Traversal' a c
(.) :: Traversal' a b -> Lens' b c -> Traversal' a c
units :: Lens' Game [Unit]
units.traversed :: Traversal' Game Unit
units.traversed.health :: Traversal' Game Int
In fact, we don't need to figure this out. The compiler will infer the correct type all by itself:
>>> :t units.traversed.health
units.traversed.health
:: Applicative f =>
(Int -> f Int) -> Game -> f Game
That's exactly the right type to be a Traversal' Game Int!
Actually, why not just compose these lenses into a single lens:
partyHP :: Traversal' Game Int
partyHP = units.traversed.health
fireBreath :: StateT Game IO ()
fireBreath = do
lift $ putStrLn "*rawr*"
partyHP -= 3
Let's also use partyHP lens to retrieve the new party hitpoints:
>>> newState <- execStateT fireBreath initialState
*rawr*
>>> newState^.partyHP
<interactive>:3:11:
No instance for (Data.Monoid.Monoid Int)
arising from a use of `partyHP'
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (Data.Monoid.Monoid Int)
In the second argument of `(^.)', namely `partyHP'
In the expression: newState ^. partyHP
In an equation for `it': it = newState ^. partyHP
Oops! This is a type error because there is no single health to get! This is why a Traversal' is weaker than a Lens': traversals may point to multiple values, so they do not support a well-defined way to get just one value. The type system saved us from a potential bug!
Instead, we must specify that we actually want a list of values using the toListOf function:
toListOf :: Traversal' a b -> a -> [b]
This gives the desired result:
>>> toListOf partyHP newState
[7,12,5]
... and there's an infix operator equivalent to toListOf: (^..):
>>> initialState^..partyHP
[10,15,8]
>>> newState^..partyHP
[7,12,5]
Now we can clearly see at a glance that fireBreath worked the way we intended.
Now I want to get really fancy. I want to define a traversal over a geographic area. Can I do that?
around :: Point -> Double -> Traversal' Unit Unit
around center radius = filtered (\unit ->
(unit^.position.x - center^.x)^2
+ (unit^.position.y - center^.y)^2
< radius^2 )
Sure I can! Now I can limit the dragon's fire breath to a circular area!
Edit: filtered is apparently not a theoretically valid traversal because it does not preserve the number of elements. See this /r/haskell thread for details.
fireBreath :: Point -> StateT Game IO ()
fireBreath target = do
lift $ putStrLn "*rawr*"
units.traversed.(around target 1.0).health -= 3
Notice how expressive that code is: we want to decrement the health of all units around the target. That code conveys our intention much more clearly than the equivalent mainstream imperative code and it leaves much less room for error.
Anyway, back to breathing fire. First, let's see where the units are located:
> initialState^..units.traversed.position
[Point {_x = 3.5, _y = 7.0},Point {_x = 1.0, _y = 1.0},Point {_x
= 0.0, _y = 2.1}]
Hmmm, the latter two units are close by, so I will aim the fireball in between them:
>>> newState <- execStateT (fireBreath (Point 0.5 1.5)) initialState
*rawr*
>>> (initialState^..partyHP, newState^..partyHP)
([10,15,8],[10,12,5])
Nailed it!
Zooming
We can do more unique things with lenses, like zoom in on subsets of our global state:
retreat :: StateT Game IO ()
retreat = do
lift $ putStrLn "Retreat!"
zoom (units.traversed.position) $ do
x += 10
y += 10
As before, we can combine these lenses into a single lens if we want to reuse it later on:
partyLoc :: Traversal' Game Point
partyLoc = units.traversed.position
retreat :: StateT Game IO ()
retreat = do
lift $ putStrLn "Retreat!"
zoom partyLoc $ do
x += 10
y += 10
Let's try it out:
>>> initialState^..partyLoc
[Point {_x = 3.5, _y = 7.0},Point {_x = 1.0, _y = 1.0},Point {_x
= 0.0, _y = 2.1}]
>>> newState <- execStateT retreat initialState
Retreat!
>>> newState^..partyLoc
[Point {_x = 13.5, _y = 17.0},Point {_x = 11.0, _y = 11.0},Point
{_x = 10.0, _y = 12.1}]
Let's look at the type of zoom in the context of this particular example:
zoom :: Traversal a b -> StateT b IO r -> StateT a IO r
zoom has some nice theoretical properties. For example, we'd expect that if we zoom using two successive lenses, it should behave the same as zooming using the composite lens:
zoom lens1 . zoom lens2 = zoom (lens1 . lens2)
... and if we zoom in on the empty lens, we end up back where we started:
zoom id = id
In other words, zoom defines a functor, and those equations are the functor laws!
Combining commands
So far I've only shown a single command at a time, but now let's take all of these concepts and imperatively assemble a battle from them:
battle :: StateT Game IO ()
battle = do
-- Charge!
forM_ ["Take that!", "and that!", "and that!"] $ \taunt -> do
lift $ putStrLn taunt
strike
-- The dragon awakes!
fireBreath (Point 0.5 1.5)
replicateM_ 3 $ do
-- The better part of valor
retreat
-- Boss chases them
zoom (boss.position) $ do
x += 10
y += 10
Let's try it out!
>>> execStateT battle initialState
Take that!
*shink*
and that!
*shink*
and that!
*shink*
*rawr*
Retreat!
Retreat!
Retreat!
Game {_score = 0, _units = [Unit {_health = 10, _position = Poin
t {_x = 33.5, _y = 37.0}},Unit {_health = 12, _position = Point
{_x = 31.0, _y = 31.0}},Unit {_health = 5, _position = Point {_x
= 30.0, _y = 32.1}}], _boss = Unit {_health = 70, _position = P
oint {_x = 30.0, _y = 30.0}}}
I guess people really aren't joking when they say Haskell is the finest imperative language.
Conclusions
This really just scratches the surface of the lens library, which is one of the crown jewels of the Haskell ecosystem. You can use lenses for pure programming, too, and compress very powerful and complex computations into very readable and elegant code. When I have more time I will write even more about this amazing library.