Date Wed 08 October 2014 Tags clojure / core.typed / functional / lenses

In two previous posts, I went on about lenses in Clojure. Pinholes comprised a small library of higher order functions to formalize and simplify the viewing and manipulation of complex nested structures. Tinholes did essentially the same thing, but with macros instead. In both cases, there's recursion going on, as we burrow through layers of nesting, but macros had the advantage of doing it all before compilation, giving core.typed a chance to check our work.

The macro post was inexplicably popular, catapulting me to levels of fame I never expected to achieve without consciously emulating an early De Niro character. It even made the low 20's on Hacker News, where this comment was made:

Using macros to pre-compile the lenses is clever, but

Punch drunk on Google Analytics, I was inclined to stop reading at "clever," but, reminding myself that self doubt is the mother of all virtue, I pressed on:

feels like a hack around typed-clojure instead of being aligned to it. All of the information needed to determine a lens' action is available at compile time even prior to expansion. Can a van Laarhoven representation be made in typed-clojure that recovers this information?

Interesting. (The bit further down, where I'm advised to show a "little humility," was less interesting. Mea culpa, already, mea maxima culpa.) Can we, in fact, make the van Laarhoven formulation be made to work in typed Clojure?

TL;DR

Yes we can! Though with less than perfect grace. Typed clojure is amazing and important. But it's a work in progress. Even when it's finished, coding styles that work well in Haskell will still be awkward in Clojure. And vice versa. Either way, strong typing is both crucial and achievable.

While not originally intended as such, the latter points may constitute a feeble response to

and the post to which it refers.

Continuing the tradition of awesome nomenclature, I am honored to present vanholes.

The van Laarhoven representation of lenses

If you don't know much about van Laarhoven lenses, but do know a little Haskell I strongly recommend this tutorial, with which I would never try to compete. There's also a great talk by Simon Peyton Jones, but, as you'll discover if you try the link, its permissions were recently locked down, roughly coincident with my post going up, making last Monday a banner day for the forces of ignorance regarding lenses.

The basic, mind-blowing idea of the van Laarhoven representation is that, rather than specifying separate getter and setter functions for some piece of data within a structure, you can write just one function, with a, seemingly, very weird type. In Haskell,

type Lens s a = Functor f => ( a -> f a ) -> s -> f s

i.e. a function that takes two arguments

first a function from some type a to a f unctor over that type

to a unctor over that type the second a s tructure

and returns the same f unctor, but over the s tructure type.

Untyped van Laarhoven lenses

To some, this section is totally backwards and probably sacrilege, since the representation is usually derived by reasoning about types, but exploring the mechanics in conventional Clojure can be interesting.

The basic "trick" is that, since lenses will be written take arbitrary functors, we will be able to pick specific ones that twist the lens function into the right sort of accessor function.

A really simplistic functor can be built in Clojure using protocols. Since protocol methods are dispatched based on their first argument, we'll need to implement a backwards p-fmap method that takes the container-like thing first, and then wrap the method call in an fmap function to reverse the arguments.

( t/defprotocol IFunctor ( p-fmap [ this fun ])) ( defn fmap [ fun c ] ( p-fmap c fun ))

We could implement a very boring functor,

( defrecord Holder [ thing ] IFunctor ( p-fmap [{ thing :thing } fun ] ( ->Holder ( fun thing )))

or, for the ultimate in boring,

( defrecord Const [ getConst ] IFunctor ( p-fmap [ this _ ] this ))

which totally ignores the function, leaving the getConst field unchanged.

While boring, Const is not completely useless, because we can define

( defn view [ lens s ] ( :getConst ( lens ->Const s )))

where, happily, the lens is being passed exactly the right arguments for a Lens :

->Const , which is a function from something to a Const functor over it, a structure, s ,

and we expect to get back a Const functor over the structure, which we can extract with :getConst .

For concreteness, let's use as our structure a vector pair, like [1 2] , and write a lens to get at the first element:

( defn l-1 [ x->Fx pair ] ( fmap # ( vector % ( second pair )) ( x->Fx ( first pair ))))

Then (view l-1 [3 4]) evaluates as:

(:getConst (l-1 ->Const [3 4])) (:getConst (fmap #(vector % 4) (->Const 3))) (:getConst (p-fmap (->Const 3) #(vector % 4))) (:getConst (->Const 3)) 3

If were only going to use l-1 with the Const functor, you'd wonder why we bothered typing out #(vector % (second pair)) , as it was destined to be ignored. Fortunately, there's another functor we can throw at it:

( defrecord Identity [ runIdentity ] IFunctor ( p-fmap [{ x :runIdentity } fun ] ( ->Identity ( fun x )))) ( defn lset [ lens x s ] ( :runIdentity ( lens ( constantly ( ->Identity x )) s )))

(We can't use set , because of the existing clojure.core/set .) Here, constantly has the effect of ignoring the original occupant, while we no longer ignore the mapping function. (lset l-1 5 [3 4]) evaluates as:

(:runIdentity (l-1 (constantly (-> Identity 5)) [3 4])) (:runIdentity (fmap #(vector % 4) ((constantly (-> Identity 5)) 3))) (:runIdentity (p-fmap (->Identity 5) #(vector % 4))) (:runIdentity (->Identity [5 4])) [5 4]

In fact, the set operation us usually defined in terms of something called over , which lets you apply a function to the focal point:

( defn over [ ln f s ] ( :runIdentity ( ln # ( ->Identity ( f % )) s ))) ( defn lset [ ln x s ] ( over ln ( constantly x ) s ))

You can verify that (over l-1 inc [3 4]) returns [4 4] .

Composition of lenses

One nice aspect of this representation is that, the lenses being ordinary functions, they can be composed. Let's say we have another lens, for accessing the :foo element of a hashmap. It's the same pattern as before. The first argument of fmap is a function that implants an element in the structure, and the second argument is the extraction of that element, wrapped in the input function:

( defn l :foo [ x->Fx hm ] ( fmap # ( assoc hm :foo % ) ( x->Fx ( :foo hm ))))

It's tempting to write a macro for building these things out of traditional getters and setters

( defmacro deflens [ lname implant extract ] ` ( defn ~ lname [ x->Fx# s# ] ( fmap ( fn [ x# ] ( ~ implant s# x# )) ( x->Fx# ( ~ extract s# )))))

with which we might have written:

( deflens l :foo # ( assoc %1 :foo %2 ) :foo )

The alert smartass will now be asking why, having made such a big deal about representing the bidirectional lens in a single function, rather than as separate functions for each direction, we're now writing convenience tools for building the single function out of the separate functions. The riposte to this question is that lenses, being functions, can be composed.

That is, they could be composed if they were unary rather than binary functions, which they would be in Haskell, since everything is curried there: (a -> f a) -> s -> f s is equivalent to (a -> f a) -> (s -> f s) . To get the same effect in Clojure, we need to curry and uncurry explicitly, e.g.

( defn curry [ f2 ] ( fn [ x ] ( fn [ y ] ( f2 x y )))) ( defn uncurry [ f1 ] ( fn [ x y ] (( f1 x ) y )))

with which we can now compose our two lenses like this:

user> ( lset ( uncurry ( comp ( curry l :foo ) ( curry l-1 ))) 9 { :foo [ 1 2 ]}) { :foo [ 9 2 ]}

The process can be streamlined in all sorts of ways, like

( defn lcomp [ & ls ] ( uncurry ( apply comp ( map curry ls ))))

so we can just do (lset (lcomp l:foo l-1) ...) . One might be (or maybe was) tempted to write more general utilities along these lines, but that would needlessly complicate the next section of this post.

Typed var Laarhoven lenses

The original mission was to explore lenses in typed Clojure. The mission would be easier were core.typed fully implemented, documented and tested, but it's sort of not, especially in the mad interzone of protocols and higher kinded types. (Important: This isn't to disparage the project in any way. It's a colossal achievement for about 1.03 people, who are the first to admit that it's not done yet.)

There are at least a few examples of people not quite getting functors to work. The protocol declaration is lifted from a Google groups response by Ambrose to one of them:

( t/ann-protocol [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] IFunctor p-fmap ( t/All [ b ] ( t/IFn [( IFunctor a ) [ a -> b ] -> ( IFunctor b )]))) ( t/defprotocol IFunctor ( p-fmap [ this fun ]))

This is reassuringly similar to the Haskell declaration

( t/All [ b ] ( t/IFn [( IFunctor a ) [ a -> b ] -> ( IFunctor b )]))) ;; fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> (f a) -> (f b)

but the differences are important.

Foremost is that the specific implementation of fmap will be determined at runtime by dynamic dispatch on the subtype, rather than chosen by matching type at compile time. We cannot possibly do the latter, because Clojure typing is completely separate from compilation. This is why we get/have to specify variance; subtyping and therefore variance are innate to JVM languages but not to Haskell. Dynamic dispatch is also behind the reversal of the arguments to fmap , as noted earlier. And by arguments we mean actual multiple arguments to a single function, rather than, multiple functions, each of one argument, returning another function of one argument: by conscious design choice, Clojure does not automatically curry, so we have one less -> . We don't take malicious pleasure in using the symbol f to mean both function and functor.

Ambrose warned in the aforementioned response that it "gets messier if you want to abstract over the Functor," but, that being the whole point of this exercise, we soldier on. Const is not that hard

( t/ann-record [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] Const [ getConst :- a ]) ( defrecord Const [ getConst ] IFunctor ( p-fmap [ this fun ] this ))

because, as we completely ignore the fun ction, we don't have to worry about specifying its type.

But in Identity we do use the function,

( t/ann-record [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] Identity [ runIdentity :- a ]) ( defrecord Identity [ runIdentity ] IFunctor ;; Can't actually do this, because fun hasn't been ( p-fmap [ this fun ] ( ->Identity ( fun ( :runIdentity this )))))

so the above won't typecheck.

We need to define and annotate fun before it's used, but after ->Identity has been defined, which requires extending Identity explicitly, rather than inline:

( t/ann-record [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] Identity [ runIdentity :- a ]) ( defrecord Identity [ runIdentity ]) ;; Now ->Identity exists ( t/ann identity-fmap ( t/All [ a b ] ( t/IFn [( Identity a ) [ a -> b ] -> ( Identity b )]))) ( defn identity-fmap [ this f ] ( ->Identity ( f ( :runIdentity this )))) ;; Now we have an fmap with a type. ( extend Identity IFunctor { :p-fmap identity-fmap } )

The annotation for identity-fmap is pretty much the same as for p-fmap in the IFunctor declaration, except specific to Identity .

Unfortunately, it still doesn't work:

Expected : ( clojure . core . typed / HMap : optional { : p - fmap [( Identity clojure . core . typed / Any ) clojure . core . typed / Any -> clojure . core . typed / Any ]}) Actual : ( clojure . core . typed / HMap : mandatory { : p - fmap ( clojure . core . typed / All [ a b ] [( Identity a ) [ a -> b ] -> ( Identity b )])} : complete ? true )

This is frightening but, I believe, spurious. The :mandatory vs :optional shouldn't be important; that just means that we weren't required to have implemented p-fmap in this extend but could have done so later. More worryingly,

The type-checker is expecting four Any s, rather than a constrained arrangement of two types, as if we had declared p-fmap to be (t/IFn [(IFunctor a) [b -> c] -> (IFunctor d)]))) rather than (t/IFn [(IFunctor a) [a -> b] -> (IFunctor b)]))) . Even so, the more specific case ought, I think, to be palatable to the more general one.

So, we take the batteries out of the smoke detector and go back to sleep

( t/ann ^ :no-check identity-fmap ( t/All [ a ] ( t/IFn [( Identity a ) t/Any -> t/Any ])))

only to be rudely awakened when we try to annotate fmap :

( t/ann fmap ( t/All [ a b ] ( t/IFn [[ a -> b ] ( IFunctor a ) -> ( IFunctor b )]) )) ( defn fmap [ fun c ] ( p-fmap c fun ))

The first problem is that protocols cannot, apparently, be used as type functions, and we get an error to this effect. It's a little surprising, since we were able to use (IFunctor a) within the definition of the IFunctor protocol itself. Trawling the mailing list, we somehow find a posting containing a link to a gist that defines a type function explicitly

( t/defalias Functor ( t/TFn [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] ( Extends [( IFunctor a )]) ))

using the Extends keyword, which is ack able in the core.typed source but not otherwise advertised. With the legitimate Functor typefunction we make it past another few lines of code

( t/ann fmap ( t/All [ a b ] ( t/IFn [[ a -> b ] ( Functor a ) -> ( Functor b )]))) ( defn fmap [ f c ] ( p-fmap c f ))

and define the Lens type

( t/defalias Lens ( t/TFn [[ s :variance :invariant ] [ a :variance :invariant ]] [[ a -> ( Functor a )] s -> ( Functor s )] ))

and write the l-1 lens

( t / ann l - 1 ( Lens ( t / HVec [ t / Int t / Int ]) t / Int )) ( defn l - 1 [ f xy ] ( fmap ( t / fn [ x :- t / Int ] :- ( t / HVec [ t / Int t / Int ]) ( vector x ( isecond xy ))) ( f ( ifirst xy ))))

where ifirst and isecond are specialized to pairs of integers:

( t/ann ^ :no-check isecond [( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ]) -> t/Int ] ) ( def isecond second ) ( t/ann ^ :no-check ifirst [( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ]) -> t/Int ]) ( def ifirst first )

Getting back to our story,

A few speeches in this vein - and evil counsels carried the day. They undid the bag, the Winds all rushed out, and in an instant the tempest was upon them, carrying them headlong out to sea. They had good reason for their tears: Ithaca was vanishing astern. As for myself, when I awoke to this, my spirit failed me and I had half a mind to jump overboard and drown myself in the sea rather than stay alive and quietly accept such a calamity. However, I steeled myself to bear it, and covering my head with my cloak I lay where I was in the ship. So the whole fleet was driven back again to the Aeolian Isle by that accursed storm, and in it my repentant crews.

or, in more modern translation,

Type Error ... Invalid operator to type application: (IFunctor a) ExceptionInfo Type Checker: Found 1 error clojure.core/ex-info (core.clj:4403)

I thought we had well and truly buried IFunctor , but since

it's still causing trouble, we know in advance that Identity and Const are the only functors we'll actually use, typed clojure supports union types, and I have no shame,

( t/defalias DumbFunctor ( t/TFn [ [ a :variance :covariant ] ] ( t/U ( Identity a ) ( Const a ))))

With Functor so redefined, everything type-checks, even

( t/ann l :foo ( Lens ( t/HMap :mandatory { :foo ( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ])}) ( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ]))) ( defn l :foo [ f m ] ( fmap ( t/fn [ x :- ( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ])] :- ( t/HMap :mandatory { :foo ( t/HVec [ t/Int t/Int ])}) ( assoc m :foo x )) ( f ( :foo m ))))

Thanks be to Athena, the annotations of curry , uncurry and lcomp , while verbose, work perfectly

( t/ann curry ( t/All [ a b c ] [[ a b -> c ] -> [ a -> [ b -> c ]]])) ( t/ann uncurry ( t/All [ a b c ] [ [ a -> [ b -> c ]] -> [ a b -> c ]])) ( t/ann lcomp ( t/All [ a b c d e ] [[[ b -> c ] d -> e ] [ a b -> c ] -> [ a d -> e ]]))

and, drumroll please,

( view ( lcomp l :foo l-1 ) { :foo [ 1 2 ]})

typechecks! More importantly, infelicitous modifications of this do not, which suggests that, notwithstanding compromises along the way, we can provide assurances of type safety to future van Laarhoveners.

But was it worth the trouble?

Yes, for me. I learned a few things, and I'll probably learn more when you correct my errors.

From a practical standpoint, I couldn't possibly recommend that anyone take this route in real, production code today, and I'm not sure I would recommend it even after the core.typed kinks have been worked out. The tinhole approach is, for Clojure, more intuitive and concise, while offering no less type safety.

Quite simply, Monad and company are not natural fits for any language that doesn't have sophisticated static typing fully integrated with its compiler. By "fully integrated," I mean that the compiler produces different code for different types signatures and arguments.

On the other hand, fancy macros are a natural fit for languages that are meaningfully homoiconic. By "meaningfully homoiconic," I mean that it's practical for normal people to write code-generating code, that such code is concise and that it doesn't appear to be in a different language from the code it generates.

Homoiconicity does not substitute for type-checking, but, if it is innate to the language, the type checker may not need to be, thus enabling the sinful pleasures of dynamic typing while stll allowing a stricter regimen to be enforced.

P.S.

Transducers can easily described polymorphically with core.typed as

( t/defalias ReducingFn ( t/TFn [[ a :variance :contravariant ] [ r :variance :invariant ]] [ r a -> r ])) ( t/defalias Transducer ( t/TFn [[ a :variance :covariant ] [ b :variance :contravariant ]] ( t/All [ r ] [( ReducingFn a r ) -> ( ReducingFn b r )])))

which is almost literally transcribed from a blog post explaining transducers with Haskell. (Note, however, the use of ReducingFn rather than Reducer , as in the post. The reducer is the collection-like thing, not the function with which it is reduced. The beauty of transducers is that they can be defined independently of the reducer.)

And they work: