The bread and butter of an imperative programmer is the loop. Coming from a C/assembly perspective, a loop is simply a structured goto which jumps back to a set location if some condition is not met. Frequently, this loop ranges over the elements of some list data structure. In C, you might be doing pointer arithmetic over the elements of an array or following pointers on a linked list until you get NULL ; in Python and other higher-level languages you get the for x in xs construct which neatly abstracts this functionality. Inside of a loop, you also have access to the flow control operators break and continue , which are also highly structured gotos. An even more compact form of loops and nested loops are list comprehensions, which don't permit those flow operators.

Haskell encourages you to use the higher order forms such as map and fold , which even further restrict what may happen to the data. You'll certainly not see a for loop anywhere in Haskell... However, as a pernicious little exercise, and also a way to get a little more insight into what callCC might be good for, I decided to implement for...in loops with both the continue and break keywords. The end hope is to be able to write code such as:

import Prelude hiding (break) loopLookForIt :: ContT () IO () loopLookForIt = for_in [0..100] $ \loop x -> do when (x `mod` 3 == 1) $ continue loop when (x `div` 17 == 2) $ break loop lift $ print x

as well as:

loopBreakOuter :: ContT () IO () loopBreakOuter = for_in [1,2,3] $ \outer x -> do for_in [4,5,6] $ \inner y -> do lift $ print y break outer lift $ print x

the latter solving the classic "nested loops" problem by explicitly labeling each loop. We might run these pieces of code using:

runContT loopBreakOuter return :: IO ()

Since continuations represent, well, "continuations" to the program flow, we should have some notion of a continuation that functions as break , as well as a continuation that functions as continue . We will store the continuations that correspond to breaking and continuing inside a loop "label", which is the first argument of our hanging lambda:

data (MonadCont m) => Label m = Label { continue :: m (), break :: m () }

It's sufficient then to call continue label or break label inside the monad to extract and follow the continuation.

The next bit is to implement the actual for_in construct. If we didn't have to supply any of the continuations, this is actually just a flipped mapM_ :

for_in' :: (Monad m) => [a] -> (a -> m ()) -> m () for_in' xs f = mapM_ f xs

Of course, sample code, f has the type Label m -> a -> m () , so this won't do! Consider this first transformation:

for_in'' :: (MonadCont m) => [a] -> (a -> m ()) -> m () for_in'' xs f = callCC $ \c -> mapM_ f xs

This function does the same thing as for_in' , but we placed it inside the continuation monad and made explicit a variable c . What does the current continuation c correspond to in this context? Well, it's in the very outer context, which means the "current continuation" is completely out of the loop. That must mean it's the break continuation. Cool.

Consider this second alternative transformation:

for_in''' :: (MonadCont m) => [a] -> (a -> m ()) -> m () for_in''' xs f = mapM_ (\x -> callCC $ \c -> f x) xs

This time, we've replaced f with a wrapper lambda that uses callCC before actually calling f , and the current continuation results in the next step of mapM_ being called. This is the continue continuation.

All that remains is to stick them together, and package them into the Label datatype:

for_in :: (MonadCont m) => [a] -> (Label m -> a -> m ()) -> m () for_in xs f = callCC $ \breakCont -> mapM_ (\x -> callCC $ \continueCont -> f (Label (continueCont ()) (breakCont ())) x) xs

Et voila! Imperative looping constructs in Haskell. (Not that you'd ever want to use them, nudge nudge wink wink.)

Addendum. Thanks to Nelson Elhage and Anders Kaseorg for pointing out a stylistic mistake: storing the continuations as () -> m () is unnecessary because Haskell is a lazy language (in my defense, the imperative paradigm was leaking in!)

Addendum 2. Added type signatures and code for running the initial two examples.

Addendum 3. Sebastian Fischer points out a mistake introduced by addendum 1. That's what I get for not testing my edits!