The aim of this library is to explore solutions for the expression problem with implementation of higher-kinded types in C#. It is composed from three major components.
App<_, _> type definition based on Lightweight higher-kinded polymorphism paper. The purpose of this type is to provide a way to define type level application.
E.g. to define a functor, we need generic argument F that can represent type constructor F<a>. We cannot do that but we can represent this with another type App<F, a> which can be seen as type level application F(a).
// Functor algebra
public interface FunctorAlg<F> {
// Surprisingly C# definition does not look very strange.
// `map` accepts a function and returns it with parameters lifted in `F`.
// map :: (a -> b) -> (F a -> F b)
Func<App<F, a>, App<F, b>> map<a, b>( Func<a, b> f );
}Having App abstraction enables us to overcome some limitations present in the great functional library for C# language-ext by Paul Louth. Most importantly, interface definition can be free of specific generic type a and b which gives a very straightforward translation from Haskell. To be more precise, this implementation follows PureScript control hierarchy, which is more granular (e.g. Functor, Bind). Also defining functions in the curried form is extremely useful and well suited for definitions e.g. JSON parser.
Object algebras as presented in the very inspiring paper (for OO programmer :)) Extensibility for the Masses. It offers a solution to the expression problem with only lightweight language features (although it's not clear to me how to express higher-order effects without represenation for higher-kinded types).
E.g. the definition of a State is expressed as multi-sorted object algebra (family polymorphism).
public interface StateAlg<F, G, s> {
// Introduction
App<F, a> makeState<a>( Func<s, (App<G, a>, s)> f );
// Elimination
(App<G, a>, s) runState<a>( App<F, a> p, s init );
}This is the source of Alg suffix and probably also other syntax differences with C# guidelines. Generic parameters starting in lowercase are "normal" generic types while capital letters represent type constructors (brand types).
The third component is the glue for the first two and shapes the perspective on effects. It is influenced by Oleg Kiselyov excellent work presented on his site. He has numerous explanations and examples that have been very helpful in translating Haskell code to C#.
This description of (higher-order) effects is what guided the implementation of this library and best describes how to approach it.
We argue that the central problem of the interaction of higher-order programming with various kinds of effects can be tackled by eliminating the distinction: higher-order facility is itself an effect, not too different from state effect.
http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/having-effect.html#Conclusions
The expression in (effectful) language is created as a tuple from App<F, a> which represent higher-kinded value with F as a type constructor applied to a generic value of type a and the context as a generic type (named shortly __), but bounded with one or many (effect) algebras, interfaces like the functor FoldableAlg<F>. C# extension methods are used to combine (extend) these expressions.
public static (App<M, Unit>, __) traverse_<F, M, a, b, __>(
this Func<a, (App<M, b>, __)> f,
(App<F, a>, __ ctx) x
)
where __ : FoldableAlg<F>, ApplicativeAlg<M> =>
x.foldr( x.ctx.pure<M, Unit, __>( Unit.Val ) )( ( aa, unit ) => f( aa ).i_( unit ) );
public static (App<M, Unit>, __) for_<F, M, a, b, __>(
this (App<F, a>, __) x,
Func<a, (App<M, b>, __)> f
)
where __ : FoldableAlg<F>, ApplicativeAlg<M> => f.traverse_( x );These effect expressions can be seen as definitions of interactions with the computation context (producing effects). They are the central tools for writing domain logic and building bigger programs from smaller pieces.
Boilerplate code is needed to lift algebra functions with a given context - to expression (DSL) level.
// Functor example with map "lifted"
public static (App<F, b>, __) map<F, a, b, __>( this (App<F, a> x, __ ctx) exp, Func<a, b> f )
where __ : FunctorAlg<F> => (exp.ctx.map( f )( exp.x ), exp.ctx);
// Foldable used in previous examples for `traverse_` and `for_`
public static Func<Func<a, b, b>, b> foldr<F, a, b, __>( this (App<F, a> a, __ ctx) x, b init )
where __ : FoldableAlg<F> => f => x.ctx.foldr( f )( init )( x.a );
// Note: when a method doesn't require `F` in input parameters, it must be explicitly
// specified on the calling site. So it's useful for `F` to be part of the tuple
// although value is not used (and there is not any). The only purpose is for C#
// compiler to infer its type.
public static (App<F, char>, __) @char<F, __>( this (F, __) exp, char c )
where __ : ParserAlg<F, char> => exp.satisfy( ci => ci == c );Techniques used in this library can be applied in any language with bounded polymorphism like F#, Kotlin, or Java, for which similar libraries exist.
Until now we didn't mentioned instances or interpreters for our embeded language. From an effects point of view, they represent effect handlers, where the real work is done.
To implement a char parser, only one class is needed that inherits (extends) the generic implementation of the state monad with choice.
// Char parser implementation with String as both, parser state (input) and parser error.
class ParserCharImpl : StateEitherImpl<string, string>, ParserAlg<State<string>, char> {
StateAlg<State<string>, Either<string>, string> st = StateImpl<string, Either<string>>.Instance;
EitherAlg<Either<string>, string> ea = EitherImpl<string>.Instance;
// Parser implementation
App<State<string>, char> ParserAlg<State<string>, char>.satisfy( Func<char, bool> f ) =>
st.makeState( ss => {
if ( ss != "" && f( ss[0] ) ) {
return ea.right( ss[0] ).pair( ss.Substring( 1 ) );
} else if ( ss != "" ) {
return ea.left<char>( $"Unexpected char: '{ss[0]}'" ).pair( ss );
} else {
return ea.left<char>( $"Unexpected EOF" ).pair( ss );
}
} );
}Combining multiple handlers is done with explicit implementation of multiple interfaces, e.g. StateEitherImpl. For this purpose, something like explicit mixins would be a useful feature. In essence, this is where the dependency graph is created and existing techniques for dependency injection can be used. Implicits also fall into this category as a constant dependency.
Although App<F, a> type as a representation for higher-kinds is usable in this form, it can be very hard to read for nested types. With only syntactic level support from the compiler, the improvement would be enormous.
Working with multiple generic parameters sometimes requires the explicit definition of only one parameter while others can be inferred. But because of this one, all parameters must be specified. Wildcard as a generic parameter would greatly reduce duplicating types known by the compiler.
This example shows how to create Maybe type which represents optional value.
First we need to define a Maybe algebra which means we need to define signature creation and elimination Maybe values. Maybe has two constructors, so to deconstruct we need two functions, handle each case appropriately, and unify the result type.
// Maybe algebra
public interface MaybeAlg<F> {
// Introduction
App<F, a> just<a>( a aa );
App<F, a> nothing<a>();
// Elimination
b runMaybe<a, b>( App<F, a> ma, Func<b> onNothing, Func<a, b> onJust );
}These are the functions we actually use in our code, not the functions on interfaces directly. They represent expressions in our DSL language.
// nothing
public static (App<F, a>, __) nothing<F, a, __>( this (F, __ ctx) ma )
where __ : MaybeAlg<F> => (ma.ctx.nothing<a>(), ma.ctx);
// just
public static (App<F, a>, __) just<F, a, __>( this (F, __ ctx) ma, a aa )
where __ : MaybeAlg<F> => (ma.ctx.just<a>( aa ), ma.ctx);
// runMaybe
public static b runMaybe<F, a, b, __>( this (App<F, a> x, __ ctx) ma, Func<b> onNothing, Func<a, b> onJust )
where __ : MaybeAlg<F> => ma.ctx.runMaybe( ma.x, onNothing, onJust );The higher-kinded type is just an empty interface definition which represents Maybe :: Type -> Type type constructor, without generic parameter like Maybe<a>.
Specific implementation of Maybe deals with the concrete representation where generic parameter a is applied (on the type level) to this type App<Maybe, a>.
// Maybe lightweight HKT
public interface Maybe { }