Preface
This repo is my way of using the Feynman Technique to learn Purescript and its ecosystem.
Feynman used simple language, storytelling, comprehensively wrote down everything he knew about the topic, then attempted to teach it such that a child could understand it. Without jargon but with brevity, he identified what he didn't know to the audience and had his content organized.
Intended Audience
The intended reader is one who has some background in programming, but no background in the Functional Programming paradigm. A reader should consult the summarized version of the Table of Contents below before determining what and how much to read.
If you want to understand why you should care about PureScript, read through the Why Learn PureScript page and Philosophical Foundations section, starting with Composition Everywhere.
If you want to learn PureScript, read the entire work from start to finish.
Overview and Scope of the Work
All code in this work uses PureScript 0.15.0
This work was created so a reader can understand PureScript and how to use it properly from a deep foundational understanding. Most other resources will get you started quickly, but then you will get confused at some point along the way. This resource takes longer to get started, but you will either not be confused or be less confused when we get to more advanced topics (e.g. monad transformers, typelevel programming, etc.)
This work does not cover how to use PureScript to do webdevelopment. In other words, things like the following:
 how to use a PureScript singlepage application (SPA) framework to build a frontend
 how to use a web server framework to build a backend
 how to do bundling and/or codesplitting effectively
 how to use HTML and CSS correctly, etc.
None of the above things need to be known to learn PureScript, but one will need to learn the above things outside of this work before they can build a great application via PureScript.
How to Read This Work
This work is intended to be read in the following order:
 Getting Started
 FP Philosophical Foundations
 Building Tools
 Syntax
 Hello World
The "Design Patterns" section should be read alongside of the "Syntax" and "Hello World" folders.
Check the issue tracker for any unresolved issues via the bug
label.
Summarized Table of Contents
There are currently 8 parts to this book. I summarize what is in each section below by showing the kinds of questions the section answers:
 00GettingStarted:
 Why learn/use PureScript?
 How do I set up an editor (using Atom)?
 How do I use the REPL?
 What other things should I know before starting my learning journey?
 01Philosophical Foundations:
 What are some foundational ideas I need to understand before FP makes more sense?
 What is the "big idea" behind using FP languages?
 What are the drawbacks of using FP languages?
 02BuildTools:
 Which tools do I use to compile and build my libraries/applications?
 What are the workflows behind using those tools?
 What other optional tools help me be more productive?
 11Syntax:
 How do I learn PureScript's syntax easily?
 What other compiler features exist syntactically?
 How do I read/write typelevel programming?
 How does
do notation
andado notation
work?  How does rebinding
do notation
and rebindingado notation
work?
 21HelloWorld:
 How do I write a simple program?
 How do I debug a program?
 How do I write a complex program using modern FP architecture?
 How do I test a program?
 How do I benchmark a program or function within a program?
 What are some examples of simple and complex realworld projects?
 31Design Patterns:
 What are commonlyused patterns or idioms to solve problems in FP languages?
 What are other FP principles or concepts not explained in the "Hello World" part of this work?
Contributing
Feel free to open a new issue for:
 Clarification on something you don't understand. If I don't know it yet and I'm interested, it'll force me to learn it
 A link to something you'd like me to research more. If I'm interested or see the value, I'll look into it and try to document it or explain the idea in a clear way
 Corrections for any mistakes or typos I've made
 Improvements to anything I've written thus far
License
Unless stated otherwise in a specific folder or file, this project is licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 4.0 International license
: (Humanreadable version), (Actual License)
Versioning Policy
The below versioning policy was created to abide by the following principles:
Principles
 Indicate PS version:
 The release should indicate which major PureScript version is being used for the library. This helps one know whether the work is still uptodate.
 Provide "stable" versions...:
 Readers of a given version should be able to read and bookmark files without worrying about those files/links breaking due to changes in its name (via renaming/reordering files, headers in files, etc.)
 Older versions should be available via
git tag
.
 ...without restricting developer creativity:
 I should be able to continue writing new content and reordering things without concern
 Load the latest release:
 This repo should show the latest release version of this project, not the one on which I'm working. In other words, the default branch should coincide with the last release.
 Lessen maintenance as much as possible:
 There should only be two branches,
latestRelease
anddevelopment
since a branch name likemaster
is overloaded with connotations. Those who want to read older versions can checkout a tag.  I currently will not hyperlink to other files within this project until either a
1.0.0
release is made or I find a way to automate that.
 There should only be two branches,
Release Syntax and Explanation
ps[purescript's major release]v[Major].[Minor].[Patch]
where
 purescript's major release means
 Normally, this would be
1.x.x
, but we don't yet have a1.0
release yet. Thus, it is currently0.13.x
x
is a placeholder for the latest minor/patch release.
 Normally, this would be
 major change means
 a file/folder name has changed, so that bookmarks or links to that file/folder are now broken
 files/folders have been modified, so that one is recommended to reread the modified parts
 a dependency (e.g. PureScript, Spago, etc.) was updated to a breaking change release
 minor change means
 a file's contents have been modified/updated to such a degree that one is recommended to reread the modified parts Read through these links about learning:
 a file's header name has changed, so that bookmarks or links to that header/section are now broken
 Spago was updated to a minor release
 patch means
 additional files/folders have been added without breaking links
 a file's contents have been modified/updated to a minor degree that one could reread the modified parts but is not likely to benefit much from it.
 a file's contents have been slightly updated (typos, markdown rendering issues, etc.)
Getting Started
This folder will cover the following topics:
 Why learn PureScript
 How to install Purescript
 Getting familiar with the REPL
 Other info you should know before working through the other folders in this project
Why Learn PureScript?
All languages make tradeoffs in various areas and on various spectrums:
 learning curve
 abstractions
 syntax
 errors
 type systems
 etc.
The question is "Which combination of tradeoffs provides the most benefits in prioritized areas?" "Good" languages happen to select specific tradeoffs that make the language wellsuited for specific problems. For example, Python is wellsuited for creating dirty onetimerun scripts to do tedious work on a computer. While Python can be used to create financial or medical applications that need to be extremely fast and secure, it would be better to use a different language that is better suited for such a task, such as Rust.
PureScript has chosen tradeoffs that its developers think are the best for creating simple to complex frontend applications that "just work;" that are easy to refactor, debug, and test; and help make developers more productive rather than less.
It can be said that other frontend languages buy "popularity" at the cost of "power and productivity." PureScript buys "power and productivity" at the cost of "popularity."
To fully answer "Why learn PureScript?" we must answer three other questions:
 Why one should use Javascript to build programs...
 ...but not write Javascript to build it...
 ...and write Purescript instead of alternatives
Why one should use Javascript to build programs...
 The web browser is the new "dumb terminal" / platformindependent OS:
 Why Founders Should Start With a Website, Not a Mobile App
 The points mentioned in this article: Learn Javascript in 2018
...but not write Javascript to build it...
 JavaScript is a Dysfunctional Programming Language
 Top 10 Things Wrong with JavaScript
 Why JavaScript Sucks
Some other ideas that are relevant:
 dynamic typing leads to errors that do not appear until after you have already shipped the code to your customers
 a linter is just a basic static type checker
 it is sometimes easier to write, read, and understand a 'safer language' that compiles to efficient Javascript than to write, read, and understand JavaScript itself (as the above articles show)
...and write Purescript instead of alternatives
TL;DR
 The Power of Composition
 Purescript: Tomorrow's Javascript Today
 Code Reuse in PureScript: Functions, Type Classes, and Interpreters
 Phil Freeman's post: 'Why You Should Use PureScript'
 PureScript's "Real World App"s
 See the Halogen version of 'Real World App'
 See the React version of 'Real World App'
 A Discourse pose describing some of the disadvantages of TypeScript and Elm when compared to PureScript
Language Comparisons
For a full list of possible alternatives to JavaScript, see CoffeeScript's wiki's list of 'Languages that compile to JavaScript'
Note: the below comparisons are still a WIP. To fully support this claim, it would help to compare each languages' various "overall rating" on various aspects. Unfortunately, since I'm not familiar with every other language mentioned, it's very difficult for me to do that. If you are familiar with such languages, consider opening an issue on this repo and discussing it with me.
In short, the below comparison will be biased towards PureScript and will not yet fairly represent the corresponding side in some situations. Consider this a starting point for your own research.
PureScript vs TypeScript
One of the main issues with JavaScript is a poor type system. Many errors aren't discovered until a person, usually a customer, runs the program. Many of these same errors could be detected and fixed before shipping code if one used a language with a better type system.
TypeScript seems to address this type safety issue. Just consider its name! However, a few people who are using PureScript now have said this about TypeScript: "You might as well be writing Javascript." TypeScript does not provide any real guarantees; it only pretends. PureScript does provide such guarantees.
 TypeScript vs PureScript: Not All Compilers Are Created Equal
 JavaScript, TypeScript, and PureScript or "Why TypeScript only 'pretends' to have types."
 Various examples comparing PureScript and TypeScript
PureScript vs Elm
Since Elm is founded on the similar philosophical foundations as PureScript, one can use Elm and gain many of the same benefits as PureScript due to its type safety. However, there is a ceiling on the abstractions one can express in Elm. PureScript's ceiling is much higher than Elm's because it has type classes.
Elm
 ... sacrifices the following features ...
 type classes, which
 reduce boilerplate code since the compiler can write code for you
 enable one to define and uphold constraints about their program (e.g. this sequence of commands must be executed in the correct order)
 type classes, which
 ... to gain the following ...
 clear actionable error messages because there are less ambiguous cases to deal with in the type system
Elm and PureScript can both be used to build a complex website. However, one will need to write more lines of code in Elm than they would in PureScript.
PureScript vs OCaml / Reason
This section has not yet been written.
PureScript vs GHCJS
Haskell, which heavily influenced PureScript, has an option for compiling Haskell to JavaScript via GHCJS. However, that comes with its own tradeoffs. PureScript was developed partly because those tradeoffs were too costly.
See PS or ghcjs for Frontend with Haskell backend for my summary of the main issues at play here.
The Strengths of PureScript
In this file, I'll cover what some of the tradeoffs PureScript makes are and why they are good. These ideas will be further explained in the "FP Philosophical Foundations" folder that appears later in this repository.
Strongly Adheres to the Functional Programming Paradigm
 A Secret Weapon for Startups  Functional Programming?
 Paradigm shifts, such as the one demonstrated by this video using C++, are what enable programs with less problems: Logging a function's name each time it is called: migrating an "objectoriented paradigm" solution to an "functional paradigm" solution. As will be explained later, this is what is known as the "Writer Monad."
 Objectoriented "design patterns" in FP languages are often just functions in disguise. Rather than learning the 20 different design patterns, one can learn how functions work and can be used to create really beautiful concepts and solutions.
 Functional Architecture: The Pits of Success. To summarize this video, FP languages force you to structure your code in a way that makes it:
 easy to test in an unbiased way (Can I prove that the logic/algorithm that solves the business problem is correct and works according to the specification despite any programmer's laziness or lack of foresight in thinking of a possible scenario where the code could fail?)
 easy to add/change/remove a "backend" to account for trends, new insights, or faster code (Without introducing a new bug or deleting a current feature, can I switch from Company A's database to Company B's database without rewriting more than 30 lines of code?)
 unconcerning to allow a new developer to work on the code, knowing that he/she cannot screw up anything major (Can the Lead/Senior Developer take the weekend off and return, knowing that it's extraordinarily difficult for developers with little experience to break something?)
Powerful Static Type System
 This video explains how a type system with
algebraic data types
comes with a number of benefits (note: it uses a different syntax than PureScript: Domain Modeling Made Functional. To summarize it,algebraic data types
 allow you to model a domain at a 1to1 ratio
 make impossible states impossible
 become your alwaysuptodate UML diagrams
 make it easy for new developers to learn how the code is structured
 guide how business logic should be implemented
 The PureScript compiler infers most of your types for you. For those who are curious and want to understand how that works, see this video: Type Inference From Scratch
 The compiler (via its warning and error messages) is your friend, not your enemy. It
 prevents you from releasing bugfilled code to a customer. (Can I guarantee that the code "just works" or cannot be built at all?)
 forces you to handle most errors correctly the first time rather than permit you to throw them under the rug because you are lazy (Can I guarantee all possible errors will not create future problems that lead to shortterm hardtounderstand code that rarely gets cleaned up and ultimately costs the company more time to fix than if it had just been written correctly the first time?)
 helps you figure out how to implement functions correctly via "Typed Holes" (explained later in the
Syntax
folder)
 This video explains how a type system with
type classes
allow one to reuse "dumb old data structures" (i.e.algebraic data types
) rather than create many new data structures that differ only one slight way: Type Classes vs the World. To summarize it,type classes
 allow you to write declarative code ("this is what will be true") rather than imperative code ("this is how to make truth true (hopefully, you got it right)")
 enables the compiler to infer runtime code
Immutable Persistent Data Structures by Default
In PureScript, immutable data structures are the default rather than being "optin." In most other languages, mutable data structures are the default with immutable ones being "optin."
Immutable data structures are
 easier to reason about because the value never changes
 are always threadsafe, preventing many typical issues with concurrency
 can be as performant as mutable data structures in most cases
Multiple Backends with Easy Foreign Function Interface
Most languages have their own backend.
 Javascript is compiled and run via a Javascript engine.
 Java compiles to bytecode that can be run on a Java Virtual Machine.
 Python gets compiled into bytecode that is then interpreted.
PureScript does not have a backend. Rather, it's source code can be compiled to other languages. While JavaScript is the focus, PureScript compiles to other languages besides JavaScript. Thus, writing one library in PureScript can work in multiple languages, and one can choose the backend (or a combination of them) that best solves their problem.
Caveat: PureScript's support for nonJavascript backends is still a workinprogress. In future releases, they will be getting firstclass support.
This backendindependent nature of PureScript makes "Foreign Function Interface" very clean. At various times, Language X needs to use code from another language, Language Y. For code written in one language to use code written in another language, there needs to be a "Foreign Function Interface" or FFI.
Many languages' FFI can be difficult to work with. Language X made various language tradeoff decisions that are different than Language Y. Getting two languages to work together is difficult to say the least. However, PureScript's FFI is very easy because PureScript already compiles to that language.
If you are compiling PureScript to Javascript, you can still write JavaScript as FFI for PureScript. This makes it possible to wrap Javascript libraries on which you heavily depend. It also enables one to easily migrate from some other language or framework (e.g. TypeScript, Angular, etc.) to PureScript in a modular, piecebypiece fashion
FAQs on PureScript
I'll answer a few possible questions the below audiences may have:
 A developer who is already competent/productive in Javascript or a compiletoJavascript language (e.g. Coffeescript, Typescript, etc.)
 A developer who is only starting to learn web technologies, but has heard that Javascript is horrible and is investigating other compiletoJavascript languages.
 A business person who knows very little about programming or programming languages but who wants to know more about what options are available and what their pros/cons are.
These are the kinds of questions the above people might be asking:
 CostBenefit Issue: Is the price of the steep learning curve worth the benefits of using PureScript in code?
 Job Prospects Issue: If I learn PureScript, can I get a good developer job?
 WhentoLearn Issue: Should I learn PureScript now or wait until sometime later?
 TimetoProductivity Issue: How long will it take me before I can write idiomatic code and be productive in PureScript?
 Opportunity Cost Issue: If I choose to learn PureScript, will I later regret not having spent that same time learning a different compiletoJavascript language (e.g. TypeScript, CoffeeScript, etc.) or a "compile to WebAssembly"capable language (e.g. Rust) instead?
 Ecosystem Issue: How mature is the Ecosystem? Will I need to initially spend time writing/improving/documenting libraries for this language or can I immediately use libraries that are stable and mature?
 Foreign Function Interface Issue: How hard it is to use another language's libraries via bindings?
 Program Tools Experience: How easy/pleasant is it to use the language's build tools (e.g. compiler, linter/type checker, dependency manager, etc.) and text editor tools (e.g. ease of setup, refactoring support, popup documentation, etc.)?
 Community Friendliness Issue: How friendly, helpful, responsive, inspiring, determined, and collaborative are the people who use and contribute to this language and its ecosystem?
 Code Migration Issue: What problems do developer teams typically encounter when migrating from Language X to PureScript and how hard are these to overcome?
Let's answer these one at a time. Each answer is my opinion and could be backed up with better arguments and explanations in some areas..
Is the price of the steep learning curve worth the benefits of using PureScript in code?
Yes. Most mainstream languages force you to depend on the IDE, linters, and other tools outside of the language to help you write correct code. Such languages often lack the features within the language itself to help you express certain ideas and constraints within your program. PureScript's powerful language features allow you to express what other languages cannot.
Even if one ultimately decides not to use PureScript, the language itself can be a helpful environment for training your mind to think more precisely about how to write code.
If I learn PureScript, can I get a good developer job?
 See the communitycurated list of companies who use PureScript in production right now.
 See Do you have a PureScript app in production?
 Check for PureScript jobs listed on Functional Jobs
Should I learn PureScript now or wait until sometime later?
You might want to learn it now for these reasons:
 PureScript is actually quite mature and close to a
1.0
. Many are already using it in production code.  PureScript is syntactically and conceptually very similar to Haskell. If you learn PureScript, you've basically learned Haskell, too. I believe that PureScript provides a better environment for learning Functional Paradigm concepts than Haskell since it's easier to install, build, and experiment with.
 No need to use any language extensions (e.g.
OverloadedStrings
)  Better record syntax
 More granular type class hierarchy
 No need to use any language extensions (e.g.
 This project covers enough items that you should be able to learn PureScript relatively quickly. Still, while this project's code compiles and runs, its accuracy has not been verified by an "expert in the language" per say.
You might want to learn it later for these reasons:
 PureScript's documentation could be improved in a number of ways:
 Documentation for libraries are good in some areas and lacking in others.
How long will it take me before I can write idiomatic code and be productive in PureScript?
The average time for learning FP languages in general is usually 36 months due to the below reasons. This repository hopes to speed that process up, but, as always, people learn at different paces:
 Many tutorials/guides assume their readers already know foundational principles. New learners who read them often do not know, nor are even aware of, those foundational principles.
 This project's
Hello World/FP Philosophical Foundations
folder exists to counter this issue
 This project's
 No one really explains what the "big picture" that FP programming is all about. Thus, it's hard to see how some concept fits in the larger scheme of things, much less why that concept is so fundamental to everything.
 See this project's
Hello World/FP Philosophical Foundations/07FPTheBigPicture.md
file
 See this project's
 People (wrongly) believe that they must know a very abstract mathematics called "Category Theory" in order to use/write PureScript or another FP language. Due to its very abstract nature, Category Theory can be difficult to grasp and scares people off.
 This "myth" is false. Most FP developers do not understand Category Theory and yet they already have an intuition for some of its ideas.
 The syntax for FP languages are paradigmatically different than the syntax with which most developers are familiar (C/Java/Python). It takes a while to get used to a "different" syntax family before it feels normal. Until it feels normal, reading through code examples will be harder.
 This project's
Syntax
folder exists to counter the above issue.
 This project's
 Related to the above, FP languages often use symbolbased aliases to refer to functions that are wellknown to FP Programmers instead of those functions' literal names (e.g.
<$>
instead ofmap
,<$
instead ofvoidRight
,$>
instead ofvoidLeft
). It's more concise and similarities between these symbolbased aliases add meaning to them, such as their "direction." Since new learners do not already know that to which function a symbol refers, it can be hard to know what that function even does. A Pursuit search that wraps the symbol in parenthensis (e.g.
(<$>)
) fixes this problem  This project's
Type Classes/ReadMe.md#Functions
section explains how to read theType Classes/assets/TypeClassFunctions.xlsx
file, which provides a table that indicates what those symbolbased fuction names are and from where they come.
 A Pursuit search that wraps the symbol in parenthensis (e.g.
 Due to their powerful type systems, FP languages trade errors that occur when running the program (runtime errors) with errors that occur when attempting to build the program via the compiler (compiletime errors). To understand how to debug these compiletime "your program would not work if it was built" errors, one must have a strong understanding of how the compiler and its type system works.
 This project's
Syntax
folder (and more specifically, theSyntax/TypeLevel Programming Syntax
folder) explain enough to help one understand why some (but not all) problems arise.  The Error Documentation sometimes explains what the error is and how to fix it (example) and other times is simply left unexplained (example).
 The PureScript Discord server is active and often helps people troubleshoot the error messages.
 This project's
 Related to the above point, the powerful type system enables one to model some abstract ideas in a very precise way using welldefined types or things called type classes. When these features start to stack, a new learner can become overwhelmed.
 If one reads this work in order, they are unlikely to be overwhelmed.
 Most of the "cool type things" one can do are helpful but not always necessary. Consider the Haskell Pyramid. "Monads" are an important and fundamental FP concept, but new learners do not need to learn what they are or how to use them right away.
 Many people try to reexplain something that another has already explained well and they write a poor reexplanation. It's hard to determine which explanations are accurate and correct and which are vague and mistaken until after you have already read it and/or know better.
 I've been you. This work is my attempt to sift through the noise and present things in the best and simplest way possible. In various cases, I summarize and/or link to other posts that I believe to be credible that also explain a concept clearly. My sources include
Haskell Weekly
, the PureScript Discord server, a number of books I've read on FP programming, a number of papers I've read on FP programming, and various videos I've watched regarding FP programming.
 I've been you. This work is my attempt to sift through the noise and present things in the best and simplest way possible. In various cases, I summarize and/or link to other posts that I believe to be credible that also explain a concept clearly. My sources include
 There are few sites or locations that "centralize" a lot of highquality FP guides/explanations. Thus, it's hard for new learners to find them.
 This project exists partly because of this issue and hopes to resolve some of these problems.
 For other "centralized" locations, see
Hello World/ReadMe.md#otherlearningresources
.
 Many ideas are explained in papers that are not written for new learners but for academics. Understanding these papers' contents sometimes requires an understanding of highlevel math, notation for specific concepts, etc., making the entry barrier higher
 In various situations, I link to such papers and only in one situation do I walk a read through such a paper. In other words, this problem is still at large.
If I choose to learn PureScript, will I later regret not having spent that same time learning a different compiletoJavascript language (e.g. TypeScript, CoffeeScript, etc.) or a "compile to WebAssembly"capable language (e.g. Rust) instead?
You might regret it if you are not being honest or thoughtful about the purpose you are trying to achieve. Not being aware of your expectations, nor having realistic ones, will almost always end in having those expectatiosn broken, leaving you angry, disappointed, or frustrated.
Some facts:
 WebAssembly holds promise, but it is still being developed.
 Languages that are popular or backed by companies with many resources are not necessarily the best languages to use for your particular purposes
 While PureScript offers more guarantees than most other languages, it unfortunately might not be the best language to use/learn if
 you need mature libraries for a particular need that hasn't yet been written in PureScript. This is one benefit of TypeScript/Javascript.
 you find that Elm's tradeoffs are "good enough" for your purposes.
 A few people who are using PureScript now have said this about TypeScript: "You might as well be writing Javascript"
How mature is the Ecosystem? Will I need to initially spend time writing/improving/documenting libraries for this language or can I immediately use libraries that are stable and mature?
It's primarily good for frontend work and not so much (yet) for backend work. When it is lacking, one will likely need to use FFI to utilize JS libraries. See awesomepurescript and the documentation site, Pursuit.
Also, attempting to port over Haskell libraries to this language are harder at times and have unexpected performance. Why? Because Haskell is a lazilyevaluated language, but PureScript is a strictlyevaluated language.
How hard it is to use another language's libraries via bindings?
Writing bindings is simple. See the Syntax/Foreign Function Interface
folder for examples of how simple bindings are and things related to this.
However, using FFI via bindings can introduce runtime errors. Whenever one uses a library via FFI, you don't know whether a function will throw an exception or not. This can produce unexpected runtime errors even though you've written your code in a typesafe language. On stable mature welltested libraries, this shouldn't be a big problem.
Lastly, writing bindings is tedious. PureScript uses algebraic data types (ADTs), but most libraries will define one function that can take multiple sets of arguments. For example, one might call the function, foo
, with any of these sets of arguments:
foo("apple")
(the first String argument,apple
, is required)foo("apple", ["banana", "orange"])
(the Array of Strings argument is optional)foo("apple", ["banana", "orange"], true)
(the boolean flag is optional, too)foo("apple", {first:"banana", second:"orange"}, true)
(the array can be passed in as a record/map/dictionary/object, too)foo("apple", {first:"banana", second:"orange", optional: true}, true)
(the second argument can have optional fields in addition to its required ones)
In reality, foo
is at least 5 different functions that are all using the same name. Thus, writing bindings for foo
is tedious to do in a language like PureScript due to PureScript's typesafe nature. However, there is a library for handling these kind of situations.
Others have also worked on writing codegenerators that, for example, can look at the code of a library written in TypeScript and generate the corresponding PureScript bindings for that code. Such a tool is still a workinprogress.
How easy/pleasant is it to use the language's build tools (e.g. compiler, linter/type checker, dependency manager, etc.) and text editor tools (e.g. ease of setup, refactoring support, popup documentation, etc.)?
The build tools are pretty good. One will typically use a spago
based workflow. These are explained in Build Tools/Tool Comparisons/Dependency Managers.md
.
See the Build Tools/
folder for more uptodate information. Likewise, see Editor and Tool Support for other editorrelated configurations.
How friendly, helpful, responsive, inspiring, determined, and collaborative are the people who use and contribute to this language and its ecosystem?
People usually get help from some of the core contributors or other wellinformed people via the #purescript
and #purescriptbeginners
. No question is too stupid. For longer threads, some post on the PureScript Discorse Forum.
The language's development is currently slow because each core contributor have fulltime jobs and contribute in their spare time, not because they don't want to.
What problems do developer teams typically encounter when migrating from Language X to PureScript and how hard are these to overcome?
 See Phil Freeman's own blog post on the matter: PureScript and Haskell at Lumi
 Thomas Honeyman's How to Replace React Components with PureScript's React libraries
 (Video) JavaScript to PureScript  a Migration Story & Slides
 (Video) Adopting Pure FP Incrementally  Engineering at Lumi
 Likewise, see Introducing Haskell to a Company, which can equally apply to Purescript
 See Robert Kluin  Introducing A Functional Language At Work  λC 2018/slides for a cautionary tale of "what can go wrong and why" when he attempted to introduce Scala at work.
Install Guide
Getting Additional Help
Throughout your learning process, it will be helpful to ask others for help. The two places this is often done is on PureScript's Discourse forum and its Discord server.
 Register for an account on PureScript's Discord server
 Note: I'll refer to this as PureScript's chatroom throughout this work.
 Register for the Purescript ML forum here
Setting up Purescript for the First Time
Overview
We'll show how to install the following programs:
purescript
 the PureScript language & compilerspago
 a dependency manager and build tool for PureScript (optional) a formatter for PureScript
parcel
 a build tool for bundling a PureScript application into a multiple JS backends (node, browser, electron)
Installation
Installing NPM
We can install everything using npm
. However, getting npm
is it's own problem. We can either install it manually by downloading node
and installing that. Or we can use nvm
(Node Version Manager) to install it for us and continue from there.
Manual Install
Justin Woo explains how to set up one's environment for the 0.12.x
release but has not been updated for two things. First, the PureScript release at the time was 0.12.0
but now 0.13.8
is out. Second, the instructions use pulp
and pscpackage
, a different build tool workflow than the one we'll use here.
If you just want to get things set up ASAP, follow the below summary of his article's instructions (using spago
instead of the other tools). If you want to understand why you should do these commands, read his article here:
 Install Node 14 or greater: https://nodejs.org/en/download/
 Set your npm prefix:
npm set prefix ~/.npm
 Note: this prevents having to use
sudo
when using NPM to install things since it's default prefix is in a place that requires admin privileges
 Note: this prevents having to use
 Set your PATH:
export PATH="$HOME/.npm/bin:$PATH"
NVM Install
 Install
nvm
using their installation instructions  Verify that the installation was successful via
command v nvm
 Install
node
vianvm
. To get the latestnode
version, use the command,nvm install node
.
Unlike the manual install, nvm
properly handles the npm prefix for you. So, you don't need to set it yourself.
Installing PureScript and Related Tooling
Once you have installed npm
, we can use it to install everything in one command:
npm i g purescript@0.15.0 spago@0.20.9 esbuild@0.14.38
If you want to install a PureScript formatter, refer to their instructions. The history behind these tools will be covered in the Build Tools
folder:
 purstidy  A selfcontained formatter written in PureScript
 pose  A plugin written in PureScript for the
Prettier
formatter
Versions Used in this Project
The following commands should now work:
purs version # 0.15.0
spago version # 0.20.9
esbuild version # 0.14.38
Building This Project
Once the above has been verified, you can build this project.
First of all, if you haven't yet cloned this project locally, then do so now:
git clone https://github.com/JordanMartinez/purescriptjordansreference
Then execute the script below which will install, build, and test every folder in this project:
source .ci/installbuildtestall.sh
Whenever I make a new release with breaking changes, this script will remove any outdated dependencies, reinstall the correct ones, and rebuild all of the folders' code.
Setting up your editor
The following are instructions for setting up the Atom editor. For Emacs, Vim, or Visual Studio, consult Justin Woo's post on the matter and the respective page in the documentation repo
Atom setup instructions:
 Install Atom:
sudo aptget install atom
 Launch Atom and install the following packages:
 idepurescript
 atomideui
 languagepurescript
 Configure
idepurescript
The Atom package, idepurescript
, is configured to Bower
, but we'll be using spago
as our dependency manager for this project. Follow these instructions
 Open Atom's settings dialog (
CTRL+,
)  Click on the
Packages
tab  Search for
idepurescript
 Click on the
Settings
button in the entry that appears  Check the
Add spago sources
checkbox  Change the
build command
to:spago build u jsonerrors
Getting IDE support (autocomplete, documentationonhover, etc.) in Atom
While this repository's contents are useful for learning various lessons, IDE support (autocomplete, documentation, etc.) will only work if you open this repository's contents in a specific way when using Atom. Follow the instructions below:
 Click "File" and click "Open Folder..." (shortcut:
CTRL+O
)  In the folder chooser, choose one of this repo's project folders (i.e. a folder with a
spago.dhall
file andsrc
folder)  Click on "Packages" and click on "PureScript" and then on "Build". The IDE server will start running and rebuild just that project.*
 Autocomplete, importing, and documentation will now work.
 This is a command you will use frequently, so consider adding a keyboard shortcut for it.
 Open the Atom settings dialog (
CTRL+,
)  Click on the "KeyBindings" tab
 Click on the "your keymap file" hyperlink that appears before the bindings
 Follow the instructions for adding your personal shortcut for the
idepurescript:build
command.
For mine, I did:
'.platformlinux atomworkspace atomtexteditor:not([mini])':
'ctrlshiftb': 'idepurescript:build'
Dealing with IDE Server issues in Atom
Sometimes when editing a file, the IDE server will go outofsync. For example, you might change the definition of a type and the IDE doesn't realize that occured, so it will tell you that you have used a type incorrectly. In such cases, rebuild the project using Step 3 (or your keyboard shortcut) above and things should correct themselves from there.
In situations where I have used the same names for things, the autocomplete might actually import a function or type with the same name as the one you want but from a different module. So, if you have weird compiler errors, check the imports to insure the IDE server didn't accidentally import something incorrect or from the wrong location.
Setting up Module Linker
When you're browsing through code on GitHub, the browser extenstion, Module Linker, can greatly help: https://github.com/fiatjaf/modulelinker
The REPL
REPL stands for Read, Evaluate, Print, Loop.
Starting the REPL
Use spago repl
. The REPL should print something like the following:
$ spago repl
PSCi, version 0.13.8
Type :? for help
import Prelude
> 
Let's walk through each part:
PSCi
means "PureScript Compiler interactive". It's similar to GHCi, the Haskell language's REPL.version
prints the PureScript version you are using.:?
indicates how to print a list of commands with their description. These are described below in this file.
After this, you may see zero or more import <ModuleName>
lines. Spago will read the .pursrepl
file to get this list and import the modules automatically. The .pursrepl
file is covered at the end of this file.
Note: if you do not see import Prelude
appear above, expressions like 5 + 5
will produce an error. To fix that, you should import the Prelude module by typing import Prelude
followed by pressing Enter.
Using the REPL
In general, there are five things you can do in the REPL:
 See the result of an expression by typing it into the REPL (e.g.
3 + 3
) and hittingEnter
.  Define a binding to some variable or function using the
binding = <expression>
syntax. For example...x = 3
function = (\x > x + 1)
 Input multiline expressions using the
:paste
command (followed byCTRL+D
)  Use other commands to explore a module's functions, types, and kinds
 Use other commands to interact with the REPL's current state (e.g. clearing out bindings and/or imported modules, showing which modules have been imported, etc.)
Possible Outputted REPL Errors
Sometimes, the REPL will output errors. These errors may not be immediately understandable for new learners, so the table below will help you understand them and know what to do.
The Error  Its Meaning  What to do 

"No type class instance was found for Data.Show.Show [Type] "  An expression cannot be turned into a String . For example, a function's implementation ((\x > x + 1) ) cannot be turned into a String whereas a value (5 ) or expression (10 + 10 ) can be (5 and 20 , respectively).  If it's possible for you to define one, define an instance of the Show type class. If not, then ignore it and move on. 
"Multiple value declarations exist for [binding]."  You defined the binding twice, which you cannot do  See the Reload command section for what your options are 
"Unknown operator (+)"  The + function was not imported because the Prelude module was imported  Import the Prelude module by typing import Prelude followed by pressing Enter. 
A Quick Overview of Some of the REPL Commands
The REPL offers a few commands. You can see the entire list by typing either :help
or :?
and pressing Enter.
These commands are listed in the same order as what the :?
outputs.
Note: the commands can be shortened to their first unique letters. So, rather than entering :type
, one can enter :t
. Likewise, rather than entering :paste
or :print
, one can enter :pa
or :pr
, respectively.
Help
Displays the REPL commands via :help
/:?
.
Quit
Exits the REPL, returning control to your shell.
Reload
The Problem
You can only define a binding once. Defining it again with a different expression will output an error
x = 5  first time
x = 6  second time raises error
 REPL's outputs error: "Multiple value declarations exist for x."
You need to clear the x
binding name to be able to reuse it for other bindings.
For example, let's say you wrote two functions and the second uses the first. However, you wrote the wrong implementation for the second and need to rewrite it:
add1 = (\x > x + 1)
times2 = (\x > x * 3)  "3" should be "2"
The Solutions
Ideally, you could just clear the second function's binding and rewrite it. Unfortunately, you cannot do that. You can either:
 use the
:reload
command to clear out both functions' bindings, redefine the first one, and then define the second one with the correct implementation  define a new binding for the correct implementation:
 1st option
add1 = (\x > x + 1)
times2 = (\x > x * 3)  Whoops! "3" should be "2"
:reload
add1 = (\x > x + 1)  define the "add1" binding again
times2 = (\x > x * 2)  define "times2" again but with correct implmentation.
 2nd option
add1 = (\x > x + 1)
times2 = (\x > x * 3)  Whoops! "3" should be "2"
times2_fix = (\x > x * 2)  define new function with correct implementation
 define your code in a file (as a module) and import that module into your REPL session. Any edits made to this file are pickedup upon a REPL reload.
Create a file containing your REPL script:
 MyModule.file
module MyModule where
import Prelude
add1 = (\x > x + 1)
times2 = (\x > x * 3)  This typo will be fixed later
Load script into the REPL:
> import MyModule
> times2 4
12
Make any edits to this file. For example, change to times2 = (\x > x * 2)
. Save file, then reload in existing REPL session. The MyModule
import will be remembered.
> :reload
> times2 4
8
Clear
Use :cl
rather than :c
to distinguish between this command and :complete
. This works the same as :reload
except that all imported modules are also removed. If you do this, you will need to reimport any modules you wish to use. For example, you will likely need to reimport Prelude (import Prelude
), so that you can use number operations (i.e. +
, 
, /
, *
) and the ==
function again.
Browse
See all the functions, types, and type classes that a module exports and which you can use
Type
This displays the type signature of a value, a function or a typeclass. One should be able to determine what the body of the function does based on the type signature, so that body is not shown:
> :type x + 1
Int
> :type (\x > x + 1)
Int > Int
Kind
Displays the kind of a type. Kinds will be explained more in the Syntax folder:
> :kind Int
Type
> :kind (Int > Int)
Type
> :kind Array
Type > Type
Show
There are two commands in this one:
show loaded
/:s loaded
 Shows all modules that the REPL session knows about. Some may or may not have been imported. (Before the REPL session starts, the PureScript compiler will compile all PureScript files based on the source globs given to it. All modules in those globs are then known to the REPL session, but you might not want to use them all in a given session.)show import
/:s import
 Shows which modules you currently have imported into the REPL session
Changes how a value is printed to the console after an expression is evaluated. By default, it uses PSCI.Support.eval
.
New learners can ignore this command for now. Those who are familiar with the language can change it to a different one by calling :print Path.To.Module.functionName
.
Regardless, to reset it to the default, one can call :print PSCI.Support.eval
.
Paste
The REPL only accepts singleline Purescript code. If anything requires you to write multiline expressions, you must use the :paste
command.
The workflow goes something like this:
 Type in the paste command:
:paste
 Do one of the following
 input multiline expressions (e.g. a type class and its function, a data type and its values, a function's type signature and its implementation, etc.).
 paste some external code into the REPL
 Type
CTRL+D
/CMD+D
to indicate that you are finished.
The REPL will then parse and all of the code, enabling you to use it from that point forward.
Complete
The REPL already supports tabcompletion. So, this command isn't meant to be used by humans. Rather, it's for tools that need a way to get tabcompletion. For context, see Harry's comment.
The .pursrepl
File
If you ever want to automatically import a list of modules, modify the .pursrepl
file. By default, it will only display the following content:
import Prelude
You can add more modules there so you don't have to type them in later:
import Prelude
import Data.Maybe
import Data.Either
Unfortunately, defining variables in the file will not automatically create them before the REPL starts. Let's say you update .pursrepl
to the below content
import Prelude
x = 5
When you run spago repl
, it will produce the following error:
$ spago repl
PSCi, version 0.13.8
Type :? for help
Unexpected or mismatched indentation at line 3, column 1
Other Important Info
 Functional Programming Made Easier is a more recent work that literally walks you through every possible thought process, mistake, compiler error, and issue you would need to make to learn PureScript and build a web application in one book. I would recommend reading this book over the PureScript by Example book below.
 Purescript By Example is the official uptodate book that teaches Purescript.
 PureScript Cookbook is an unofficial cookbook that shows "How to do X" in PureScript.
 "Not Yet Awesome" PureScript is a list of things that are not yet awesome in PureScript
 Configure Web Browser for Convenient Pursuit Lookup shows how to make it easy to search all documentation.
 Consider using this same approach to setup a search using Starsuit, a Pursuit copy that works only packages in the latest packageset (a concept described more in the Build Tools folder of this repo). Use "https://spacchetti.github.io/starsuit/#search:" as your search.
 PureScript Migration Guides when a breaking change is made.
Functional Programming Jargon
While reading through this repo, the Functional Programming Jargon might be a helpful reference whenever you come across a term that isn't covered in this project.
Writing Algorithms in an FP Language
This repo will not explain how to write algorithms in a performant way using an FP language. Consider reading Algorithm Design with Haskell which does teach algorithms using an FP language.
Differences From Haskell
If you're coming to PureScript with a Haskell background, be sure to consult the following resources:
 Introduction to Purescript for Haskell Developers (pdf)
 The Purescript Documentation Repo's "Differences from Haskell" page
Use GitHub Search to Find Things Search Engines (i.e. Google) Don't
At various times, you may try to use something like Google to find documentation / examples and little will appear in the search results.
A better solution is to use GitHub's search. To learn its syntax, read searching code.
Then, you use a search query like the following:
Goal  Search Query  Meaning 

Find examples of projects that use a dependency (e.g. purescriptprelude )  path:/ in:file purescriptprelude  Search a project's toplevel files (e.g. bower.json /spago.dhall /pscpackage.json ) for the text purescriptprelude 
Find realworld examples of code that uses libraries (e.g. affbus )  language:purescript path:src/ in:file "Effect.Aff.Bus"  Search a project's src directory for files whose content mentions the Effect.Aff.Bus module at some point. (Note: the full module name must be surrounded by quotes) 
Find realworld examples of code that uses testing libraries (e.g. affbus )  language:purescript path:test/ in:file "Test.QuickCheck"  Search a project's test directory for files whose content mentions the Test.QuickCheck module at some point. (Note: the full module name must be surrounded by quotes) 
Documentation
 Anytime you need to look up the documentation for a package, you have two options:
 use Pursuit.
 Pros: One can navigate through a library's version and dependencies
 Cons: Some of the deprecated packages mentioned above are still posted there. (e.g.
purescriptdom*
packages, which are deprecated in favor ofpurescriptweb*
packages)
 use Starsuit
 Pros: Only provides documentation for packages in the latest package set
 Cons: One does not immediately know which version of a library is displayed, nor what its dependencies are.
 use Pursuit.
 Read Pursuit's Search Help page
 Some libraries have not been updated to
0.13.8
and are still on the0.11.7
release. Some still work; others won't. In this work, we will insure that you do not use any such libraries, but be aware of that if you browse the docs on your own.  Lastly, some libraries have not uploaded their latest versions' documentation. In these cases, we will forewarn you. Fortunately,
spago docs
will produce a local version of the source code's documentation that looks similar to Pursuit. It does not support all the features of Pursuit, but it's better than nothing. To do that, follow these commands:spago docs open
will generate the documentation and then use your default web browser to open the file,generateddocs/html/index.html
.
Undocumented Pursuit Tip
To get the latest version of the Pursuit docs of a package's function, package's type, or the package itself, simply remove the version in the url. Pursuit will load the latest version of that package: https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescriptprelude/docs/Data.Eq
Composition Everywhere
TL;DR
Watch The Power of Composition
By "composition," we mean, "Assemble a few lowlevel reusable pieces into a higherlevel piece." Here are some examples:
 (Classic example) Legos. Using small blocks of plastic, people can create all sorts of interesting things.
 Furniture. Using wood, metal, fabric, glass, and nails, people can create tables, chairs, desks, cabinets, etc.
Composition makes FP code easy to refactor because we can always reassemble the smaller pieces into something new or different.
But what kinds of things do we compose? In Functional Programming, we compose types (called algebraic data types
) and functions.
Composing Types Algebraically
Algebraic Data Types (ADTs) use Algebra to define the total number of values a given type (i.e. named Set) can have.
There are two videos worth watching in this regard. The table and visualizations that follow merely summarize their points, except for the ideas behind the List
and Tree
types in the second video.
 'Algebraic Data Types' as "Composable Data Types" (stop at 29:26)
 Same ideas already explained in the above "Power of Composition" video:
 It uses a different syntax than
PureScript
but the ideas still apply.
 The Algebra of Algebraic Data Types
 Warning: video has terrible sound quality!
 explains the "algebraic laws" behind ADTs
 covers
List
s andTree
s (unlike first video)
Name  Math Operator  Logic Operator  PureScript Type  Idea 

Product Type  x * y  AND  Tuple  "One value from type x AND one value from type y " 
Sum Type  x + y  OR  Either  "One value from type x OR one value from type y " 
Exponential Type  y^x  ???  InputType > OutputType  ??? 
Composing Functions
Similar to types, functions also compose but in a slightly different way. Look over the below image and then watch the video at the end (if you haven't seen it already).
Pure vs Impure Functions
Visual Overview
Functional Programming utilizes functions to create programs and focuses on separating pure functions from impure functions.
General Overview
Properties
The following table that shows a comparison of pure and impure functions is licensed under CC BYSA 4.0:
 Original Credit: Sam Halliday  "Functional Programming for Mortals with Scalaz"
 License: legal code & legal deed
 Changes made
 Converted idea into a table that compares pure functions with impure functions
 Further expand on "does it interact with the real world" idea with more examples from the original work
Pure functions have 3 properties, but the third (marked with *
) is expanded to show its full weight:
Pure  Pure Example  Impure  Impure Example  

Given an input, will it always return some output?  Always (Total Functions)  n + m  Sometimes (Partial Functions)  4 / 0 == undefined 
Given the same input, will it always return the same output?  Always (Deterministic Functions)  1 + 1 always equals 2  Sometimes (NonDeterministic Functions)  random.nextInt() 
*Does it interact with the real world?  Never  Sometimes  file.getText()  
*Does it access or modify program state  Never  newList = oldList.removeElemAt(0) Original list is copied but never modified  Sometimes  x++ variable x is incremented by one. 
*Does it throw exceptions?  Never  Sometimes  function (e) { throw Exception("error") } 
In many OO languages, pure and impure code are mixed everywhere, making it hard to understand what a function does without examining its body. In FP languages, pure and impure code are separated cleanly, making it easier to understand what the code does without looking at its implementation.
Programs written in an FP language usually have just one entry point via the main
function. Main
is an impure function that calls pure code.
Sometimes, FP programmers will still write impure code, but they will restrict the impure code to a small local scope to prevent any of its impurity from leaking. For example, sorting an array's contents by reusing the original array rather than copying its contents into a new array. Again, impure code is not being completely thrown out; rather, it is being clearly distinguished from pure code, so that one can understand the code faster and more easily.
Data Types
Principles
In order to abide by the principle of pure functions, FP Data Types tend to adhere to two principles:
 Immutable  the data does not change once created. To modify the data, one must create a copy of the original that includes the update.
 Persistent  Rather than creating the entire structure again when updating, an update should create a new 'version' of a data structure that includes the update
For example...
{
Given a linkedlist type where
"Nil" is a placeholder representing the end of the list
"←" in "left ← right" is a pointer that points from the
right element to the left element
"=" in "list = x" binds the 'x' name to the 'list' value }
Nil ← 1 ← 2 ← 3 = x
{
To change x's `2` to `4`, we would create a new 'version' of 'x'
that includes the unchanged tail (Nil ← 1)
followed by the new update (← 4) and
a copy of the rest of the list (← 3). }
Nil ← 1 ← 2 ← 3 = x
↑
4 ← 3 = y
Using a more visual diagram:
 At the end of the computation, these are true:
x == x
x /= y
 x = [3, 2, 1]
 y = [3, 4, 1]
 index 0 1 2
(indexAt 2 x) isTheSameObjectAs (indexAt 2 y)
Big O Notation
FP data types have amortized
costs. In other words, most of the time, using a function on a data structure will be quick, but every now and then that function will take longer. Amortized cost is the overall "average" cost of using some function.
These costs can be minimized by making data structures lazy
or by writing impure code in a way that doesn't "leak" its impurity into the surrounding context.
Lazy vs Strict
A computation can either be lazy or strict. Before giving the below table, let's give a reallife example.
This is "Strict evaluation." Your parent tells you to immediately do some chore (e.g. wash dishes, etc.). You go and do so. Sometimes, you learn that this was necessary. Other times, you learn that the dishes were already washed by someone else. Despite telling your parent that they don't need to be washed, your parent insists and overrules you. This especially annoys you on days where "washing the dishes" will take a long time.
This is "Lazy evaluation." Your parent tells you to remember to do some chore but not to start until they tell you. On some days, they never tell you to start because the task wasn't needed after all. You love those days. On other days, they tell you to start in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening.
Term  Definition  Pros  Cons 

Strict  computes its results immediately  Expensive computations can be run at the most optimum time  Wastes CPU cycles and memory for storing/evaluating expensive computations that are unneeded/unused 
Lazy  defers computation until its needed  Saves CPU cycles and memory: unneeded/unused computations are never computed  When computations will occur every time, this adds unneeded overhead 
To make something lazy, we turn it into a function. This function takes one argument (Unit
) and returns the value we desire. This is called a thunk
: a computation that we know how to do but have not executed yet. To run the code stored in the thunk
, we use the phrase forcing the thunk
.
 Given an Int, I can return another Int
strictlyCompute :: Int > Int
strictlyCompute x = x + 4
 otherwise known as 'thunking'
 Given an Int, I can return a 'thunk.' When
 this thunk is evaluated, it will return an Int.
lazilyCompute :: Int > (Unit > Int)
lazilyCompute x = (\unitValue__neverUsed > x + 4)
forceThunk :: (Unit > Int) > Int
forceThunk thunk = thunk unit
 somewhere in our code
thunk = lazilyCompute 5
 somewhere else in our code, when we finally need it
result = forceThunk thunk
Other Resources
 This resource is not necessary for you to read it to understand and use PureScript. However, it might satisfy those who are curious. It uses the Lisp language in its examples, so the code might be difficult to understand. Regardless, the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP) (see this or that) has a chapter on lazy evaluation and thunks.
Looping via Recursion
In most OO languages, one writes loops using while
and for
. Looping in that matter makes it very easy to introduce impure code. So, in FP languages, one writes loops using recursion, patternmatching, and tailcall optimization. The rest of this file will compare OO code to its FP counterpart
For i
until condition
do computation
and then increment i
// factorial
var count = 5;
var result = 1;
for (var i = 2; i < count; i++) {
result = result * i
}
 This is a stackunsafe function (explained and improved next)
factorial :: Int > Int
factorial 1 = 1  base case
factorial x = x * (factorial (x  1))  recursive case
factorial 3
 reduces via a graph reduction...
3 * (factorial (3  1))
3 * (factorial 2)
3 * 2 * (factorial (2  1))
3 * 2 * (factorial 1)
3 * 2 * 1
6 * 1
6
StackSafe
The above Purescript example illustrates a problem that comes with writing loops this way: stack overflows. Thus, when one says "this function is stacksafe
", they mean that calling the function will not risk the possibility of a stack overflow runtime error being produced. One usually prevents this risk via tailcall optimization (which usually converts the recursive loop back into an OO loop) or trampolining (when tailcall optimization isn't possible)
Thus, one will usually write recursive functions in this manner. Rather than using recursion to calculate the value by creating a 'stack' of *
operations (as done above), one will pass into the function an additional argument that acts as the accumulated value. The necessary state change / calculation is done and its result is passed in as the new accumulated value in the next iteration of the recursive function call:
factorial :: Int > Int
factorial n = factorial' n 1
factorial' :: StartingInt > AccumulatedInt > AccumulatedInt
factorial' 1 finalResult = finalResult
factorial' amountRemaining accumulatedSoFar = {
 This is the general idea being done in the single line of code
 after this comment
let
oneLess = amountRemaining  1
nextAccumulatedValue = accumulatedSoFar * amountRemaining
in
factorial' oneLess nextAccumulatedValue }
factorial' (amountRemaining  1) (amountRemaining * accumulatedSoFar)
factorial 4
 reduces via a graph reduction...
factorial' 4 1
factorial' 3 4
factorial' 2 12
factorial' 1 24
24
In some cases, one will need to write more complex code to get the desired performance using a combination of defunctionalization and continuationpassing style (CPS). This is covered in more detail in the Design Patterns/Defunctionalization.md
file.
For ... Break If
// findFirst
var findFirst = (array, condition) => {
var length = list.length();
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
var value = list[i]
if (condition(value)) {
return value;
}
}
return null;
}
findFirst([0, 1, 2], (i) => i == 1);
 linked list
data List a
= Nil  end of the list
 Cons a (List a)  head of a linked list & rest of list
data Maybe a
= Nothing  could not find a value of type A
 Just a  found a value of type A
findFirst :: forall a. List a > (a > Boolean) > Maybe a
findFirst list condition = findFirst' list condition Nothing
findFirst' :: forall a. List a > (a > Boolean) > Maybe a > Maybe a
findFirst' Nil condition notFound = notFound
findFirst' (Cons head tail) condition theA@(Just alreadyFound) =
findFirst' tail condition theA
findFirst' (Cons head tail) condition Nothing =
let foundOrNot = if (condition head) then (Just head) else Nothing
in findFirst' tail condition foundOrNot
findFirst (Cons 0 (Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil))) (\el > el == 1)
 reduces via a graph reduction...
findFirst' (Cons 0 (Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil))) (\el > el == 1) Nothing
findFirst' (Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil)) (\el > el == 1) Nothing
findFirst' (Cons 2 Nil) (\el > el == 1) (Just 1)
findFirst' Nil (\el > el == 1) (Just 1)
Just 1
ShortCircuiting
The above Purescript example illustrates another problem with writing loops this way: shortcircuiting
. There are times when we wish to break out of a recursionbased loop early, such as when we have found the first element of a collection. In the above example, the function does not shortcircuit, so it continues to iterate through the list even after it has found the element, leading to wasted CPU time and work.
To make the function above shortcircuit, we would rewrite the function to this:
 linked list
data List a
= Nil  end of the list
 Cons a (List a)  head of a linked list & rest of list
data Maybe a
= Nothing  could not find a value of type A
 Just a  found a value of type A
findFirst :: forall a. List a > (a > Boolean) > Maybe a
findFirst Nil condition = Nothing
findFirst (Cons head tail) condition =
if (condition head)
then Just head
else findFirst' tail condition
findFirst (Cons 0 (Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil))) (\el > el == 1)
 reduces via a graph reduction...
findFirst (Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil)) (\el > el == 1)
Just 1
Other Loops
The following Purescript examples are very crude ways of mimicking the following loops. More appropriate examples would require explaining and using type classes like Foldable
and Monad
(intermediate FP concepts). Thus, take these examples with a grain of salt.
While
while (condition == true) {
if (shouldStop()) {
condition = false
} else {
doSomething();
}
}
data Unit = Unit
whileLoop :: Boolean > (Unit > Boolean) > (Unit > Unit) > Unit
whileLoop false _ _ =  body
whileLoop true shouldStop doSomething =
 `doSomething unit` is called in here somewhere
 at the end of the function's body, it will call
whileLoop (shouldStop unit) shouldStop doSomething
For value
in collection
// length
var count = 0;
for (value in list) {
count += 1;
}
data List a
= Nil
 Cons a (List a)
length :: forall a. List a > Int > Int
length Nil totalCount = totalCount
length (Cons head tail) currentCount =
length tail (currentCount + 1)
Type Classes
What Problem Do Type Classes Solve?
Their primary use is to make writing some code more convenient / less boilerplatey. Rather than writing the same code 25 different times where it differs in only one way each time, we can write code once and "parameterize it" in 25+ different ways.
To see a bottomup explanation of this idea, read through the bullet points below and then watch the video.
 This video is a recording of a presentation given by Nathan Faubion, a core contributor to PureScript.
 This video finishes explaining what type classes are around 22:54.
 The parts that follow are more advanced concepts. They explain how to make "real world code" easily testable via type classes and interpreters. You might not understand those explanations until you are more familiar with PureScript syntax.
 The presentation ends at 1:03:58. Nate starts answering people's questions after that.
 Nate's answers to various questions ends at 1:13:12 and the rest of the video are people talking about various PureScript things.
 While Nate explains that type classe enable "code reuse," one could use an approach called "scrap your type classes" (SYTC) to accomplish that goal. SYTC will be covered later in this file.
Video: Code Reuse in PureScript: Functions, Type Classes, and Interpreters (actual video title on YouTube: "PS Unscripted  Code Reuse in PS: Fns, Classes, and Interpreters")
Where Do Type Classes Come From?
Type classes are usually "encodings" of various concepts from mathematics.
Type classes make developers productive. They enable programmers...  to write 1 line of code that is the equivalent of writing 100s of lines of code.  to define complicated control flows that highlight the important parts and minimize the irrelevant boilerplatey parts (e.g. nested "if then else" statements)  to use (in general) 5 "dumb reusable data types" to solve most of our problems:  Maybe  a box that is either empty or has a value.  Either  a sum type: either has a Left value or a Right value  Tuple  a product type: has both an A value and a B value  List  selfexplanatory  Tree  selfexplanatory
Type Classes as Encodings of Mathematical Concepts
Type classes often encode ideas that are true regardless of what we call them (i.e. "necessary" concepts), but functional programmers will refer to them via jargon (i.e "arbitrary" names like Functor
). (For more context on the usage of "necessary" and "arbitrary" as terms, see Arbitrary and Necessary Part 1: a Way of Viewing the Mathematics Curriculum).
Putting it differently, if Some type
can implement some function(s)/value(s) with a specified type signature
in such a way that the implementation adheres to specific laws
, one can say it has an instance of the given type class. Some types cannot satisfy a given type class' conditions; others can satisfy them in only one way; and still others can satisfy them in multiple ways. Thus, one does not say "Type X
is an instance of <some type class>." Rather, one says "Type X
has an instance of <some type class>." To see this concept in a clearer way and using pictures, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ7V1KXJpsE
Thus, type classes abstract general concepts into an "interface" that can be implemented by various data types. They are usually an encapsulation of 23 things:
 (Always) The definition of type signatures for one or more functions/values.
 Functions may be put into infix notation using symbolic aliases (e.g.
<$>
) to make it easier to write them.
 Functions may be put into infix notation using symbolic aliases (e.g.
 (Almost Always) The laws by which implementations of a type class must abide.
 These laws guarantee certain properties, increasing developers' confidence that their code works as expected.
 They also help one to know how to refactor code. Given
lefthandside == righthandside
, evaluating code on the left may be more expensive (memory, time, IO, etc.) than the code on the right.  Laws cannot be enforced by the compiler. For example, one could define a type class' instance for some type which satisfies the type signature. However, the implementation of that instance might not satisfy the type class' law(s). The compiler can verify that the type signature is correct, but not the implementation. Thus, one will need to insure an instance's lawfulness via tests, (usually by using a testing library called
quickchecklaws
, which is covered later in this repo)
 (Frequently) The additional functions/values that can be derived once one implements the type class.
 Most of the power/flexibility of type classes come from the combination of the main functions/values implemented in a type class' definition and these derived functions. When a type class extends another, the type class' power increases, its flexibility decreases, and its costs increase.
Examples
Here are some examples that demonstrate the combination of the 23 elements from above:
 The
Eq
type class specifies a type signature for a function calledeq
/==
andnotEq
//=
, and laws for the two (e.g. ifa == b
andb == c
, thena == c
), but there are not any derived functions.  The
Ord
type class is similar toEq
, but it does have derived functions.  The
Functor
type class (explained in more detail later) has all three.
Similarities and Dual Relationships Among Type Classes
Some type classes have a corresponding "dual." While there are better ways to explain duals, the basic idea is that the "direction" of the function's arrow gets flipped. When this happens, we usually prefix them with "Co". For example, if we have a type class called Monad
, the dual of it is called Comonad
. If Monad
has laws A
and B
, then it's likely that Comonad
will have laws A'
and B'
, which are "flipped" version of A
and B
.
For example, a function like toB
would have its arrow flipped to produce toA
::
 original
toB :: a > b
toB =  function's implementation
{
 1. Drop the implementation
toB :: a < b
toB =
 2. Flip the arrow
toB :: a < b
toB =
 3. Reorder the arguments so that arrow is pointing to the right:
toB :: b > a
toB =
 4. Rename the function
toA :: b > a
toA = }
 Dual version
toA :: b > a
toA =  function's implementation
Equational Reasoning
Functions in FP languages often work like equations: the lefthand side can be replaced by the righthand side. We'll cover this idea more in the graph reduction section. This idea enables a developer to solve a problem using a simple but not performant solution that can be easily refactored to a much more performant version of the solution. We'll cover this in the "Optimizing Functions" section.
Graph Reduction: Running a Function
In source code, we can describe the various parts of a function based on which side of the =
character the content appears:
 LeftHand Side (LHS): the function name and all of its arguments
 RightHand Side (RHS): the body or implementation of the function
 LHS   RHS 
functionName int1 int2 = int1 + int2
When using pure functions, one can replace the LHS with the RHS, and the program will still work the same. This concept is known as referential transparency:
functionName 4 3
 replace LHS with RHS
4 + 3
 reduce into final form
7
 Calling `function 4 3` could be removed and replaced
 with `7` and the program would work the same
 Similarly, the below function (a longer form syntactically) and its arguments
 could be replaced with `6` and the program would work fine.
(\arg1 arg2 arg3 > arg1 + arg2 + arg3) 1 2 3
 replace LHS with RHS
(\ arg2 arg3 > 1 + arg2 + arg3) 2 3
(\ arg3 > 1 + 2 + arg3) 3
(\ > 1 + 2 + 3)
1 + 2 + 3
1 + 5
6
Although the above examples are very simple functions, imagine if one's entire program was one function that exhibited this behavior. If so, it would be very easy to understand and reason one's way through such a program.
Optimizing Functions: From Simplicity to Performant
This section summarizes the main ideas explained in Algorithm Design with Haskell (Cambridge, Amazon).
Above, we showed that functions are "run" by using graph reduction: the lefthand side is replaced with the righthand side. However, this idea also applies when we refactor code, enabling the following developer workflow:
 Solve a programming problem by composing multiple highlevel functions together. Initially, this version of the solution will not be performant.
 "Decompose" the highlevel functions by replacing their call site (i.e. lefthand side) with their implementations (i.e. righthand side)
 Use laws to refactor how those implementations compose to reduce unneeded work.
Typically, the 'laws' above are from type classes. When we see that a function "decomposes" to map function1 (map function 2)
, which iterates through some collection twice, we can rewrite it to map (\arg > function1 (function2 arg))
, which iterates through some collection once but still produces the same output.
Following this workflow makes it easier to solve all programming problems. In particular, this workflow helps when writing a greedy algorithm or a dynamic programming algorithm.
Let's provide two other examples of this idea. To keep things simple for those who don't understand PureScript's syntax, we'll not use laws to guide refactoring.
Example 1
As a very simple example, consider the following programming problem:
Given an array of integers,
arr
, that will have 0  20 elements, define a function,countTwoFourSum
, that calculates how often a 2 or 4 appears in the array (i.e. its count) and sums the resulting counts together. For examplecountTwoFourSum([1, 2, 3, 4]) == 2 countTwoFourSum([1, 3, 5, 7]) == 0 countTwoFourSum([2, 2, 3, 6]) == 2 countTwoFourSum([2, 2, 3, 4]) == 3
Using Step 1 above, the simplest solution would be to write something like this:
var countTwoFourSum = function(arr) {
return count(arr, 2) + count(arr, 4);
};
var count = function (arr, value) {
var accumulatedValue = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
var nextElem = arr[i];
if (nextElem == value) {
accumulatedValue = accumulatedValue + 1;
}
}
return accumulatedValue;
};
Translating that to PureScript, we would write:
countTwoFourSum :: Array Int > Int
countTwoFourSum arr =
(count arr 2) + (count arr 4)
count :: Array Int > Int > Int
count arr value = foldl countIfValue initialAccumulatedValue arr
where
initialAccumulatedValue = 0
countIfValue accumulatedValue nextElem =
if nextElem == value then accumulatedValue + 1 else accumulatedValue
While it is easy to think of the solution to this code by writing it in this way, it's not performant because we loop through the array twice.
In step 2, we can replace the original function, count
, with its implementation.
countTwoFourSum :: Array Int > Int
countTwoFourSum arr =
(foldl countIfTwo initialAccumulatedValue arr) +
(foldl countIfFour initialAccumulatedValue arr)
where
initialAccumulatedValue = 0
countIfTwo accumulatedValue nextElem =
if nextElem == 2 then accumulatedValue + 1 else accumulatedValue
countIfFour accumulatedValue nextElem =
if nextElem == 4 then accumulatedValue + 1 else accumulatedValue
In step 3, we refactor the resulting computation to be more performant. Below, we iterate through the array once rather than twice by using only one foldl
.
countTwoFourSum :: Array Int > Int
countTwoFourSum arr =
let finalCount = foldl countIfValues initialAccumulatedValue arr
in finalCount.twoCount + finalCount.fourCount
where
initialAccumulatedValue = {twoCount: 0, fourCount: 0}
countIfValues {twoCount, fourCount} nextElem =
{ twoCount: if nextElem == 2 then twoCount + 1 else twoCount
, fourCount: if nextElem == 4 then fourCount + 1 else fourCount
}
Example 2
The above example illustrates this workflow but isn't the most impressive example. Here's a slightly more complex example. Let's say a programmer is reading through a description of a problem and its desired output. Piece by piece, she types out the below code as a solution to each part of the problem:
map fromString stringArray  1. convert each string element into
 an integer (if possible)
# catMaybes  2. remove elements where the string wasn't an integer
# map (_ + 1)  3. add one to each integer
# sum  4. sum all the resulting integers into a value
While the above code solves the problem, it is not performant. It iterates through an array multiple times and creates multiple intermediate arrays. By using equational reasoning (not shown below), we can speed this up to a single iteration:
foldl f init stringArray
where
init = 0
f acc next =
case fromString next of
Nothing > acc
Just i > acc + i + 1
Crucially, our first focus was on writing a correct solution and then on making it performant.
FP  The Big Picture
Here's a sneak peek as to what the design process for writing FP programs looks like. Note: I assume you're already familiar with pure and impure functions. If not, see FP Philosophical Foundations/PurevsImpureFunctions.md
:
Build Tools
This folder accomplishes the following:
 Explain the various tools used throughout the ecosystem and their usages/differences:
 Document the differences between
Bower
andSpago
dependency managers  Document the difference between
Pulp
andSpago
build tools
 Document the differences between
 Document the CLI options for the most popular tools (e.g. purs, pulp, spago, etc.)
 Document a typical workflow from project start to finish (creation, fastfeedback development, initial publishing, 'bump' publishing)
History: How We Got Here
The following explanation does not cover all the tools used in PureScript's ecosystem. However it provides context for later files. In short, spago
is both the official dependency manager and build tool. bower
can be thought of as a deprecated dependency manager; the community is in the process of building a registry that will replace the Bower registry since it no longer accepts uploads. pulp
is a build tool that uses bower
; its usage will become more common again once the registry is built.
Phase 1: Initial Tooling
PureScript's compiler was originally called psc
(PureScript Compiler) before later being renamed to purs
. (We'll see this psc
name reappear elsewhere in a related project).
PureScript did not use npm
as a dependency manager because of an issue related to transitive dependencies. Thus, they used bower
because it fit their goals/requirements better. (All of this is covered more in the Dependency Managers/Bower Explained.md
file).
Bodil Stokke (with later contributions from Harry Garrood) later wrote a tool called pulp
that worked with bower
and purs
to provide a userfriendly developer workflow:
 download your dependencies
 compile, build, and test your project
 publish libraries and their docs
 easily bump the project's version
Phase 2: The pscpackage
Experiment
Bower
worked fine, but there were a few userinterface issues that made it difficult to use, especially when a new PureScript release was made that included breaking changes.
As a result, pscpackage
was developed as an experimental dependency manager. It solved some of the problems that bower
faced. pulp
later supported pscpackage
, so that one could benefit from the simple developer workflow.
However, pscpackage
encountered its own problems, too. People could not easily create and modify something called a "local package set" (a term that is explained later in the SpagoExplained.md
file).
To resolve these problems, Justin Woo started a project called spacchetti
(he likes to name his projects via food puns), which made it much easier to create and modify a "local package set."
See the below image to visualize this:
Phase 3: Improving the pscpackage
Developer Workflow via Spago
From the above image, one should infer that using pulp
and bower
was overall easier to use and explain. Thus, Justin Woo and Fabrizo Ferrai started a project called spago
. spago
evolved out of spacchetti
and reimplemented parts of pscpackage
into one program with a seamless developer workflow. While pscpackage
can still be used, it's better to use spago
.
The below image summarizes the current state:
Phase 4: Spago
becomes mainstream while pscpackage
is less used
Spago dropped support for pscpackage
commands in the v0.11.0
release. pscpackage
is still usable and is more or less featurecomplete. However, no further work on it will be done. Rather, Spago has become the main dependency manager when utilizing packagesets.
The community is now split between pulp
+ bower
workflows and spago
workflows. One must still use pulp
+ bower
if they want to do the following:
 publish their library's docs to Pursuit
 include their library in a package set, so
spago
users can use it
Phase 5: The need for a PureScript registry (Bower registry no longer accepts new uploads)
The Bower registry stopped accepting new uploads. The community quickly updated their tooling to workaround how libraries are published and installed. However, it was clear that PureScript now needed to create a registry.
Fabrizio Ferrai led the effort to build this registry with significant input from Harry Garrood. The registry is not yet complete, so the community is in this inbetween stage.
Regardless, the following is still true:
 most people are now using
spago
 the
pulp
+bower
workflow is still needed to publish a library, but it works differently now. See these instructions for how to use
bower
to publish a library in this inbetween context  See the
Dependency Managers/Bower Explained
file for clarification on how to install packages as dependencies if one is usingbower
 See these instructions for how to use
 Thomas has written a Recommended Tooling for PureScript Applications post.
See The bower
registry is no longer accepting package submissions for more context.
Phase 6: Updating JavaScript output to ES modules and delegating bundling to 3rdparty tools
In PureScript 0.15.0
, we stopped compiling PureScript source code to CommonJS modules and started compiling to ES modules. As a result, we dropped the buggy and broken bundler provided via purs bundle
and instead directed endusers to use 3rdparty bundlers like esbuild
, webpack
, and parecel
. Such bundlers often produced smaller bundles than purs bundle
. Moreover, it gave the core team in charge of PureScript one less thing to maintain.
See the 0.15.0 Migration Guide for more details.
Overview of Tools
Name  Type/Usage  Comments  URL 

purs  PureScript Compiler  Used to be called psc   
spago  Build Tool  Frontend to purs and packageset based projects  https://github.com/purescript/spago 
pulp  Build Tool  Frontend to purs . Builds & publishes projects  https://github.com/purescriptcontrib/pulp 
bower  Dependency Manager (being deprecated)    https://bower.io/ 
purstidy  PureScript Formatter    https://github.com/natefaubion/purescripttidy 
psa  Pretty, flexible error/warning frontend for purs    https://github.com/natefaubion/purescriptpsa 
pscid  pulp watch build on steroids  Seems to be a more recent version of pscpane (see below) and uses psa  https://github.com/kRITZCREEK/pscid 
psvmjs  PureScript Version Manager    https://github.com/ThomasCrevoisier/psvmjs 
esbuild  LowConfig bundler    https://esbuild.github.io/ 
The following seem to be deprecated or no longer used:
Name  Type/Usage  Comments  URL 

pscpackage  Dependency Manager    https://github.com/purescript/pscpackage 
pscpane  Simplistic autoreloading REPLbased IDE  No longer used? Last updated 1 year ago...  https://github.com/anttih/pscpane 
gulppurescript  Gulpbased Build Tool  No longer used? Last updated 1 year ago...  https://github.com/purescriptcontrib/gulppurescript 
Purify    Deprecated in light of pscpackage   
For this repo, we will be using spago
for our build tool and dependency manager.
Dependency Managers
There are two solutions to dependency management where each has a different 'target audience' per say:
 Bower (library developers)
 Spago (application developers)
The community needs both solutions for reasons that will be explained later.
Each one will be further explained in its own file. However, one can refer to each with a "crude name" that summarizes them:
 Typical package manager (Bower)
 Glorified
git clone
tool (Spago)
Dependency Managers Compared
This sidebyside comparison should be thought of as an "apples to oranges" comparison.
Bower  Spago  

Ideal User 


Official/Unofficial  Official (parts of the PureScript compiler depend on it)  Unofficial 
Trajectory  Moving away?  Moving towards? 
Design Goals  ?  See this summary of a project that later "evolved" into Spago 
Pros 


Cons 


Bower Explained
Note: The Bower
registry has been deprecated. The PureScript community is in the process of creating a registry. When that is done, we will stop using bower
entirely. In the meantime, you must still use bower
+ pulp
to publish libraries' docs to Pursuit. One can still use bower
as a dependency manager, however, one will need to depend on other libraries using the full repo url in the bower.json
file:
"dependencies": {
 "purescriptsomelibrary": "^0.1.0"
+ "purescriptsomelibrary":"https://github.com/githubUser/purescriptsomelibrary#mybranch"
}
What is it?
A typical dependency manager that downloads dependencies from a centralized repository (i.e. Bower Registry) or GitHub.
Why Use It?
When developing a library, one needs to refer to specific versions of dependencies that do not change over time.
If one uses spago
, they can modify the "binary" of the dependency without changing the version to which it refers. For application developers, this can be desirable. Not so for library developers.
Some people prefer bower
over spago
while others do not. Learn about both and make your decision.
Why doesn't Purescript use npm
?
The following provides a much shorter explanation of Why the PureScript Community Uses Bower
Short answer:
 Because NPM doesn't produce an error when multiple versions of the same transitive dependency are used.
Long answer:
 When package
child1
requiresparent v1.0.0
and packagechild2
requiresparent v2.0.0
, NPM, will "nest" the packages, so that the code will compile.  Should one or both packages export something that exposes
parent
and our code uses it, this will produce a runtime error, either because some API doesn't exist (e.g. one version changed/removed some API) or because a pattern match didn't work (e.g. aninstanceOf
check failed due to seeing different types defined in theparent
package)  Bower uses "flat" dependencies, so it will notify you that such an issue exists by asking you to choose the library version you want to use to resolve the issue.
Problem Points?
 The issues stated above.
 You must use
npm
to install any JavaScript libraries for bindings. This is true forbower
andspago
alike. pulp
doesn't provide a command that wrapsesbuild
(e.g.pulp bundleapp
) whereasspago
does.
Solution to Most Common Bower Problem: The Cache Mechanism
When in doubt, run the following command, reinstall things, and see if that fixes your issue:
# Deletes the 'bower_components' and 'output' directories,
# ensuring that the cache mechanism is not corrupting your build
# and that the next build will be completely fresh.
bower cache clean && rm rf bower_components/ output/
Horrible User Experience Occurs After a Breaking Change Release
The following issue is happening less and less frequently due to the PureScript language stabilizing, but it still needs to be stated.
Annoyance Defined
If a compiler release that includes breaking changes was released recently, it will take some time for libraries in the ecosystem to become compatible with that release. If you are using Bower as your dependency manager, it may try to install libraries that are not compatible with the new release, creating problems.
Recommended Guidelines
In such circumstances, follow these guidelines to help find the correct version of a library:
 Go to Pursuit and look at the library's package page. Choose one of the library's versions and compare that version's publish date with the date of the compiler release. Those that occur after the compiler release are likely compatible with the new release.
 Since
purescriptprelude
is a dependency for most libraries, see which version ofpurescriptprelude
the library uses. That should indicate whether it's compatible with a new compiler release or not.  If all else fails, check the library's last few commit messages in its repository for any messages about updating to the new compiler release.
Spago Explained
What is it?
A way to use specific versions of libraries that are known to compile together without problems, as verified by CI.
Why Use It?
spago
only allows you to use dependencies that compile together on a specific PureScript release. You do not have to track down which version of a DependencyA
to use to ensure it compiles when you also use DependencyB
. Moreover, you don't have to verify that DependencyA
at v1.0.0
works on PureScript release 0.13.8
instead of 0.11.7
.
When a new PureScript release with breaking changes occurs, using bower
is painful until the ecosystem "catches up." Since a new release draws in a lot of people, their initial exploration of PureScript when using bower
can be horrible.
spago
also allows you to
 'patch' a dependency with your own version
 fix a bug in its implementation
 update a library to a newer PS release if it hasn't been done yet
 update a library's transitive dependency to a newer release without needing to submit a PR
 add local or cloudbased dependencies not found in the official package set
 a project you use frequently, like a custom
Prelude
library.  a project with your preferred aliases to functions/values (i.e. using
<!>
formap
instead of<$>
)
 a project you use frequently, like a custom
How does it work?
Spago Terms
A package in this context is 4 things:
 a Git repo
 a tag in that repo
 a set of its dependencies (which are also packages).
 a name to refer to the combination of the above three things
Thus, a package is a unique named repotagdependencies
combination (e.g. prelude
could indicate the Prelude repo at the 'v4.1.1' tag).
A package set consists of a set of packages. It's a JSONlike file that maps a package name to its corresponding repotagdependencies
combination. A package set gets verified to ensure that its set of packages compiles together on a given PureScript compiler release. Once verified, they are considered "immutable."
A package set includes all dependencies: direct ones and their transitive dependencies. For example, if the set includes the package, PackA
, which depends on the package, PackB
, the package set must include both packages:
PackA
 Version:
v1.0.0
 Repo:
https://exampleRepo.com/PackA.git
 Dependencies:
["PackB"]
(spago will look up "PackB" in the package set to resolve it)
 Version:
PackB
 Version:
v1.0.0
 Repo:
https://exampleRepo.com/PackB.git
 Dependencies:
[]
(no dependencies)
 Version:
The Process It Uses
Here's a "big picture" flowchart for what a person does and how it fits into their developer workflow:
Problem Points?
 Major
 You cannot use this workflow to develop libraries. Use
pulp
andbower
for that.
 You cannot use this workflow to develop libraries. Use
 Minor / has workarounds
 Just like
bower
, you still need to usenpm
to install JavaScript libraries for any PureScript bindings. To understand why, see https://github.com/purescript/spago#whycantspagoalsoinstallmynpmdependencies
 Just like
Why We Need Both
See @hdgarrood
's Thoughts on PureScript package management in 2019.
Below are my thoughts on why we need both. I'm not sure whether this is entirely correct.
Think about what happens when a PureScript release is made that includes breaking changes.
Updating each library in the ecosystem to account for those breaking changes is similar to putting a plant inside a vase with colored water. The colored water will first enter its roots, then go up its branches, and finally appear in every leaf (Kids' experiment explained with photos)
In our above analogy, the purescriptprelude
library and other libraries with no dependencies are the "roots" of the ecosystem. As they get updated, the libraries that depend on them (i.e. the "branches") can now be updated. A "leaf" corresponds to a library which has no dependents.
A package set is immutable. Thus, one cannot add to the package set a package that has been updated to the new release unless all of the packages in the package set can also be updated.
During that transitional time, spago
cannot help. Rather, we must depend on Bower
to slowly update each library to its new version that depends on transitive libraries that have been updated to new versions.
Again, spago
is more suited for application developers and bower
is more suited for library developers.
Spago: From Start to Finish
The below example uses spago
as the build tool and dependency manager.
Create the project
# 1. Sets up the initial files and structure of the project
spago init
If you need to override/add packages to the standard package set, proceed to Configure the Package Set
. Otherwise, continue to Install Dependencies
Configure the Package Set
# 2a) Open the below file, read its toplevel comment,
# and follow its instructions to override/add packages
nano packages.dhall
# 2b) When finished, either verify that a single patched/added package
# works with the rest of the set...
spago verify singlePackageName
# or reverify the entire package set
spago verifyset
Freeze the Package Set
Note: Spago does this automatically now. So, one likely does not need to do this anymore. It is provided for context / historical purposes.
# 3) Freeze the package set to prevent security issues.
# For a deeper explanation on what happens here,
# see Dhall's safety guarantees wiki page:
# https://github.com/dhalllang/dhalllang/wiki/Safetyguarantees
spago freeze
Install Dependencies
One of two ways
# Install a package from the package set to your project
spago install packageName1 packageName2 # ...
Write the Code
# Open the REPL to play with a few ideas or run simple tests
spago repl
# Build the docs
spago docs open
# Automatically rebuild project whenever a source/test file is changed/saved
# and clear the screen before rebuilding
spago build watch clearscreen
Build the Code
# Install all dependencies (if not done so already) and
# compile the code
spago build
# Build a developerlevel executable file
spago bundleapp main Module.Path.To.Main to dist/index.js
node dist/index.js
# Build a productionlevel Nodebackend file via Parcel
spago bundleapp main Module.Path.To.Main to dist/bundleoutput.js
parcel build dist/bundleoutput.js target "node" o app.js
To build a productionlevel browserbackend file...
# Build a productionlevel browserbackend file
spago bundleapp main Module.Path.To.Main to dist/app.js
Create an HTML file (dist/example.html) that references the 'app.js' file
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en" dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta charset="utf8">
<! Insert your title here >
<title>Some Title</title>
</head>
<body>
<! Reference the outputted bundle here >
<script src="/app.js" charset="utf8"></script>
</body>
</html>
Then use parcel to do minification and open the resulting web page
parcel build dist/example.html target "browser" o index.html open
# it'll create a few files in the `dist/` folder and open the resulting
# "dist/index.html" file via your default web browser
Bower: From Start to Finish
Warning: This code hasn't been checked. Most of it should be correct, but some parts might be wrong.
Create the project
One of two ways
pulp init
Install dependencies
# Need to install NPM packages and initialize them
npm install npmpackage1 npmpackage2
npm install
bower install package1 package2 save
bower install
Due to the Bower registry being deprecated, there are some packages that will have to be installed using a longer name format because the library couldn't be uploaded into the Bower registry. While the registry is deprecated, bower
can still download the files from GitHub if one uses this longer name format. Harry described how one could do that here and also mentions bower link
as another possible option:
in
bower.json
, instead of writing..."dependencies":{ "purescriptsomelibrary":"^0.1.0" }
... you can write
"dependencies": { "purescriptsomelibrary":"https://github.com/githubUser/purescriptsomelibrary#mybranch" }
you can also use
bower link
which is similar but gives you a bit more flexibility
Write the Code
# Open the REPL to play with a few ideas or run simple tests
pulp repl
# Automatically rebuild project whenever a source file is changed/saved
pulp watch before 'clear' build
# Automatically retest project whenever a source/test file is changed/saved
pulp watch before 'clear' test
# Build a developer version
esbuild bundle outfile dist/fileName.js output/Main/index.js # if program
# Run the program and pass args to the underlying program
pulp run  arg1PassedToProgram arg2PassedToProgram
Publish the Package for the First Time
See this help page for authors on Pursuit. Its instructions are more authoritative than what follows.
# Build the docs
pulp docs  format html
# Then read over them to insure there aren't any formatting issues or typos
# Set the initial version
pulp version v0.1.0
# Publish the version
pulp publish
Publish a New Version of an AlreadyPublished Package
# Build and check the docs
pulp docs  format html
# bump project version
pulp version major
pulp version minor
pulp version patch
# or specify a version
pulp version v1.5.0
# publish it
# Note: you may need to run this command twice.
pulp publish
Continuous Integration
GitHub Actions  Bower
based
name: CI
on:
push:
branches: [master]
jobs:
build:
runson: ubuntulatest
steps:
 uses: actions/checkout@v2
 uses: purescriptcontrib/setuppurescript@main
with:
purescript: "0.15.0"
purstidy: "0.8.0"
 uses: actions/setupnode@v
with:
nodeversion: "14"
 name: Install dependencies
run: 
npm install g bower
npm install
bower install production
 name: Build source
run: npm runscript build
 name: Run tests
run: 
bower install
npm runscript test ifpresent
GitHub Actions  Spago
based
name: CI
on:
push:
branches: [master]
jobs:
build:
runson: ubuntulatest
steps:
 uses: actions/checkout@v2
 uses: purescriptcontrib/setuppurescript@main
with:
purescript: "0.15.0"
purstidy: "0.8.0"
spago: "0.20.9"
 name: Cache PureScript dependencies
uses: actions/cache@v2
with:
key: ${{ runner.os }}spago${{ hashFiles('**/*.dhall') }}
path: 
.spago
output
 name: Set up Node toolchain
uses: actions/setupnode@v2
with:
nodeversion: "14"
 name: Cache NPM dependencies
uses: actions/cache@v2
env:
cachename: cachenodemodules
with:
path: ~/.npm
key: ${{ runner.os }}build${{ env.cachename }}${{ hashFiles('**/package.json') }}
restorekeys: 
${{ runner.os }}build${{ env.cachename }}
${{ runner.os }}build
${{ runner.os }}
 name: Install NPM dependencies
run: npm install
 name: Build the project
run: npm run build
 name: Run tests
run: npm run test
Formatters
History
For the longest time, PureScript did not have a formatter. There are a number of reasons:
 Since
PureScript
is written in Haskell, people are less likely to contribute since Haskell is still different from PureScript (even if they share similarities). Ideally,
PureScript
would be written in PureScript. Unfortunately, ifPureScript
was selfhosted, runtime performance of thepurs
binary would suffer greatly otherwise. See purescript/purescriptinpurescript, which was stopped after that realization was made.  Realistically, a formatter could be written in Haskell and reuse the PureScript language's parser. However, then less people would contribute as not everyone is familiar with Haskell
 If a formatter was written in PureScript, it would get more contributions.However, it would have to reimplement the PureScript language's parser and stay in sync with any changes made to the language. Moreover, it would likely be slower than writing it in a lowerlevel language (e.g. Haskell).
 Ideally,
 Writing a formatter is very hard to do. It's typically a feat not done by your beginner or everyday programmer.
 Once written, maintainers can burn out because many individuals will want configuration added (e.g. "it should indent A in situation Y exactly N spaces but only M spaces in situation Z"). If the configuration is not added, people complain. If it is added, others might later complain about how it has TOO much configuration. Either way, it's typically the maintainer who adds the feature and those who want it don't contribute.
The first formatter written was purty
. This formatter was written in Haskell. It was the only formatter for a number of years. Some in the community chose to use it while others did not.
Around March/April 2021, @natefaubion
wrote a PureScript implementation of the PureScript language's parser: natefaubion/purescriptlanguagecstparser.
The second and third formatters, purstidy
and pose
, respectively, were announced around the same time in August 2021. Both projects were under developement without knowing about each other. purstidy
is a standalone formatter whereas pose
is a plugin for the Prettier
formatter.
Current Formatters
Formatter  Language  Author  Initial Announcement 

purstidy  PureScript  @natefaubion  Announcing purstidy : a syntax tidyupper for PureScript 
pose  PureScript  @Zelenaya /@iamtheslime  Tiny announcement: yet another PureScript formatter 
purty  Haskell  @joneshf  Purty 1.0.0 released 
Syntax
This folder contains compileable Purescript syntax using metalanguage (a language that describes the syntax). Thus, rather than saying something like
f :: String > Int
which doesn't tell you anything, it'll say:
functionName :: ParameterType > ReturnType
Since the syntax can be compiled, it can be verified as valid and correct syntax.
As a result, most files will appear like so:
 The module will be declared at the top of the file
 It can be ignored.
module Syntax.ModuleName where
 The Prelude module might be imported
 It, too, can be ignored.
import Prelude
 The thing that the file is documenting usually goes here.
 Don't ignore this stuff.
data Box a = Box a
 Sometimes the comment "necessary to compile" will appear.
 It makes the metalanguage compileable. Ignore everything underneath it
 as you read through the files.
 necessary to compile
type SomeTypeName = String
If you want to play around with the syntax, follow these instructions:
 Go to a directory that has a
spago.dhall
file (otherwise, the rest of these commands won't work)  Install the dependencies:
spago install
 Start a REPL or build the files with watching (refer to the table below)
Command  Ideal Usage  Other Comments 

spago repl  Play with <10 lines of syntax  Edit .pursrepl and add import ModuleName to automatically import that module whenver you run this command 
spago build watch  Test out 10+ lines of syntax  Saving a file after running this command will recompile the project 
Basic Syntax
Read through these files in their order. To further grasp the concept, write your own version of the code and see if it still compiles by running:
spago build
To see what the documentation looks like, run this command:
spago docs open
The above command will generate the docs, and then open the file, ./generateddocs/index.html
.
00Comments.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Comments where
 This is a singleline comment
 Anything past the "" syntax on a line is regarded as a comment
{
This is a multiline comment
Anything between the bracketdash syntax is regarded as a multiline comment
}
{ It can also be used to add a comment inbetween stuff }
01ValueFunctionDataSyntax.purs
module Syntax.Meta where
 This file simply shows enough syntax so that the
 explanation on Kinds (next) makes sense.

 entity_name :: Type Signature
 entity_name = definition
integer_value :: Int
integer_value = 5
string_value :: String
string_value = "this is text"
  In other words...
  ```
  var one_arg_function = function (argument) {
  return bodyThatReturnsType;
  };
  ```
one_arg_function :: ParameterType > ReturnType
one_arg_function argument = bodyThatReturnsType
 Below is an Algebraic Data Type. We'll explain these more later.

 Here, we declare a type called `Type_Used_In_Functions_Type_Signatures`,
 which has two implementations. The type is used in an entity's
 Type Signatures while the implementations are used in an entity's
 definition
data Type_Used_In_Functions_Type_Signatures
= Type_Implementation1
 Type_Implementation2
example1 :: Type_Used_In_Functions_Type_Signatures
example1 = Type_Implementation1
example2 :: Type_Used_In_Functions_Type_Signatures
example2 = Type_Implementation2
 A "box" that can store only Ints
data Box_That_Stores_Ints = Box Int
example3 :: Box_That_Stores_Ints
example3 = Box 4
example4 :: Int > Box_That_Stores_Ints
example4 x = Box x
 A "box" type that can store values of another type.
data Box_That_Stores anotherType = Box_Storing anotherType
example5 :: Box_That_Stores Int
example5 = Box_Storing 4
example6 :: Int > Box_That_Stores Int
example6 x = Box_Storing x
 Look! An outer Box that stores an inner Box, that stores an Int
example7 :: Box_That_Stores (Box_That_Stores Int)
example7 = Box_Storing (Box_Storing 4)
 The "forall someType." syntax will be explained later. It's needed here
 to make this code compile. You can read example8's type signature as
 "If you give me a value that has a given type, which I'll refer to as
 `someType`, then I can give you back a Box that stores a value of
 `someType`."
example8 :: forall someType. someType > Box_That_Stores someType
example8 valueWhoseTypeIs_'someType' = Box_Storing valueWhoseTypeIs_'someType'
 necessary to make this file compile
type ValueType = String
type ParameterType = String
type ParameterType1 = String
type ParameterType2 = String
type ReturnType = String
bodyThatReturnsType :: ReturnType
bodyThatReturnsType = "return value"
bodyOfFunction :: ReturnType
bodyOfFunction = "body of inline function"
Explaining Kinds
This code...
function :: Int > String
function x = "an integer value!"
... translates to, "I cannot give you a concrete value (i.e. String
) until you give me an Int
value."
Similarly, this code...
data Box a = Box a
... translates to, "I cannot give you a concrete type (e.g. Box Int
, a box that stores an Int
value (rather than a String
value or some other value)) until you tell me what a
is."
Let's rewrite the above Box
type. Things on the left of the =
indicate type information. Things on the right of the =
indicate value information.
{
 Type information  Value information  }
data BoxType a = BoxValue a
The above code now says, "I cannot give you a concrete type (e.g. BoxType Int
) until you tell me what a
is." Let's assume that a
is Int
. We would say that BoxValue 4
is a value whose type is BoxType Int
.
What are Kinds and Kind Signatures?
Kinds = "How many more types do I need defined before I have a 'concrete' type?"^^
^^ This is a "working definition." There's more to it than that when one considers typelevel programming, but for now, this will suffice."
We saw earlier that we annotate functions with type signatures via >
:
 
 \/
function :: Int > String
function x = "an integer value!"
The >
indicates that the thing to the right (i.e. String
) cannot be produced until it is given the thing to the left of it (i.e. Int
).
Type signatures annotate valuelevel entities like values (i.e. 4
or BoxValue
) and functions.
Kind signatures annotate typelevel entities like BoxType
. They are basically type signatures for types, not values.
# of types that still need to be defined  Special Name  Their "kind signature" (Purescript)^^  Their "kind signature" (Haskell)^^ 

0  Concrete Type  Type  * 
1  HigherKinded Type (by 1)  Type > Type  * > * 
2  HigherKinded Type (by 2)  Type > Type > Type  * > * > * 
n  HigherKinded Type (by n)  ... Type ... > Type  ... * ... > * 
^^ These columns are rightaligned to show that the rightmost Type
/*
is the "concrete" type. Also, the ... Type ... > Type
(and its Haskell equivalent) syntax is not real syntax but merely conveys the recursive idea in an nkinded type. The other three (0  2) are real syntax.
Concrete Types
Concrete types can usually be written with literal values:
integerValue :: Int
integerValue = 1
(1 :: Int)  this is notation for saying that `1` is a value of type, `Int`.
stringValue :: String
stringValue = "a literal string"
("a literal string" :: String)
data BoxType a = BoxValue a
boxWithOneIntValue :: BoxType Int
boxWithOneIntValue = BoxValue 4
((BoxValue 4) :: BoxType Int)
arrayOfIntsValue :: Array Int
arrayOfIntsValue = [1, 2, 3]
([1, 2, 3] :: Array Int)
HigherKinded Types
Higherkinded types are those that still need one or more types to be defined.
 Kind Signature: Type > Type
 Reason: the `a` type needs to be defined
data Box a = Box a
 This is the same definition as above.
 However, the kind signature of the above `Box` definition is implicit.
 The below definition has an explicit kind signature.
data BoxType :: Type > Type
data BoxType a = BoxValue a
 As we can see, there can be many different concrete 'Box' types
 depending on what 'a' is:
boxedInt :: Box Int
boxedInt = Box 4
boxedString :: Box String
boxedString = Box "string"
boxedBoxedInt :: Box (Box Int)
boxedBoxedInt = Box boxedInt
We can make the type's kind higher by adding more types that need to be specified. For example:
 A box that holds two values of same or different types!
 Kind Signature: `Type > Type > Type`
data BoxOfTwo a b = BoxOfTwo a b
data BoxOfTwo_ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Type > Type
data BoxOfTwo_ExplicitKindSignature a b = BoxOfTwoValue a b
 The below syntax is not valid because it is missing `forall a b.`,
 but it gets the idea across. The "forall" syntax will be covered later.
higherKindedBy2 :: a > b > BoxOfTwo a b
higherKindedBy2 a b = BoxOfTwo a b
 We can lower the kind by specifying one of the data types:
higherKindedBy1L :: b > BoxOfTwo Int b
higherKindedBy1L b = BoxOfTwo 3 b
higherKindedBy1R :: a > BoxOfTwo a String
higherKindedBy1R a = BoxOfTwo a "a string value"
concreteType :: BoxOfTwo Int String
concreteType = BoxOfTwo 3 "a string value"
Generic types can also be split across the values of a type:
 It's either an A or it's a B, but not both!
 Kind signature is implicit: `Type > Type > Type`
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
data Either_ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Type > Type
data Either_ExplicitKindSignature a b
= Left a
 Right b
higherKindedBy2L :: a > b > Either a b
higherKindedBy2L a b = Left a
higherKindedBy2R :: a > b > Either a b
higherKindedBy2R a b = Right b
higherKindedBy1L_ignoreB :: b > Either Int b
higherKindedBy1L_ignoreB b = Left 3
higherKindedBy1L_useB :: b > Either Int b
higherKindedBy1L_useB b = Right b
higherKindedBy1L_ignoreBoth :: a > b > Either Int b
higherKindedBy1L_ignoreBoth a b = Left 3
Either
(where the a
and b
are not yet specified) has kind Type > Type > Type
because it cannot become a concrete type until both a
and b
types are defined, even if only constructing one of its values whose generic type is known.
In other words
allSpecified :: Either Int String
allSpecified = Right "foo"
{
(value) }
(Right "foo") {
(value :: Type ) }
(Right "foo" :: Either Int String) {
((value :: Type ) :: Kind) }
((Right "foo" :: Either Int String) :: Type) {
((value :: Type ) :: Kind ) }
((Right "foo" :: Either a String) :: Type > Type)
Table of Inferred Types
Inferred kind  

Unit  Type 
Array Boolean  Type 
Array  Type > Type 
Either Int String  Type 
Either Int b  Type > Type 
Either a String  Type > Type 
Either  Type > Type > Type 
...  ... 
03ThePrimModule.purs
module Syntax.Basic.PrimitiveTypesAndKinds where
import Prelude
{
The following file documents the Prim module. This module is imported
by default into every PureScript file (unless one hides it using Module aliases,
which are described in the Module Syntax folder) and is embedded in the
compiler itself to provide value literals for certain types and syntax sugar.
See the full documenation here:
https://pursuit.purescript.org/builtins/docs/Prim
This file will document all the types whose kind signature is `Type`.
Their kind signatures aren't that important at this level in your understanding.
Note: To prevent conflicts between the real code and this compileable file,
we're appending underscores to the types. Remove the underscore to get the
real thing in Purescript.
In other words
Purescript: DataType :: Kind
This example: data DataType_  Kind
}
data Number_  Type  doubleprecision float number
exampleNumber1 :: Number
exampleNumber1 = 1.0
 negative values must be wrapped in parenthesis:
exampleNumber2 :: Number
exampleNumber2 = (1.0)
data Int_  Type
exampleInt1 :: Int
exampleInt1 = 1
exampleInt2 :: Int
exampleInt2 = 0x01  alternative way to write them
exampleInt3 :: Int
exampleInt3 = 1_000_000  use underscores for thousands character
 negative values must be wrapped in parenthesis:
exampleInt4 :: Int
exampleInt4 = (1)
exampleInt5 :: Int
exampleInt5 = (0x01)
exampleInt6 :: Int
exampleInt6 = (1_000_000)
data Boolean_  Type
exampleTrue :: Boolean
exampleTrue = true
exampleFalse :: Boolean
exampleFalse = false
{
Note: The Boolean data type is used via true/false literal values instead of
True/False constructors as one might expect, especially those coming from Haskell
where such a simple data type would be defined as:
data Boolean = True  False
In Purescript, having Javascript as the main compilation target, the decision was
made to use true/false literal values for the Boolean data type instead of
having it be defined as a simple Algebric Data Type (ADT) as is the case in Haskell.
}
data Char_  Type  doesn't support astral plane characters (code points > 0xFFFF)
exampleChar :: Char
exampleChar = 'c'
unicodeA :: Char
unicodeA = '\x0061'
 Astral plane characters (i.e. those with code point values greater than
 `0xFFFF`) cannot be represented as `Char` values.
unicodeChar :: Char
unicodeChar = '\xFFFF'
unicodeChar2 :: Char
unicodeChar2 = '\xffff'
data String_  Type
literal_string_syntax :: String
literal_string_syntax = "literal string value"
 Follows this regex pattern: \x[09afAF]{1,6}
unicode_hex_escape_syntax :: String
unicode_hex_escape_syntax = "\xa4"
 Syntax sugar for Strings
slashy_string_syntax :: String
slashy_string_syntax =
"Enables multiline strings that \
\use slashes \
\regardless of indentation \
\and regardless of vertical space between them \
\(though you can't put comments in that blank vertical space)"
{
"This will fail \
 oh look a comment that breaks this!
\to compile."
}
triple_quote_string_syntax :: String
triple_quote_string_syntax = """
Multiline string syntax that also ignores escaped characters, such as
* . $ []
It's useful for regular expressions
"""
 HigherKinded Types
data Array_  Type > Type
arrayOfStrings :: Array String
arrayOfStrings = ["string1", "string2"]
arrayOfInts :: Array Int
arrayOfInts = [0, 1, 2, 3]
 The "forall a." syntax will be explained later. It's needed here
 to make this code compile
array_of_one_A :: forall a. a > Array a
array_of_one_A a = [a]
data Function_  Type (parameter type) > Type (return type) > Type
 In other words, give me the parameter type and the return type,
 and I'll have a concrete type
function_no_syntax_sugar :: Function Int Int
function_no_syntax_sugar = (\x > x + 4)
function_with_syntax_sugar1 :: (Int > Int)
function_with_syntax_sugar1 = (\x > x + 4)
function_with_syntax_sugar2 :: Int > Int
function_with_syntax_sugar2 = (\x > x + 4)
function_with_syntax_sugar3 :: Int > Int
function_with_syntax_sugar3 x = x + 4
01DefiningValuesandFunctions.purs
module Syntax.Basic.ValuesAndFunctions where
import Prelude
 This file simply shows the syntax for how to define
 values and types
 A zeroarg function cannot exist in FP programming*
 Thus, it counts as a static value
literal_value :: ValueType
literal_value = "literal value"
 * function :: Unit > ReturnType is as close as one can get to a
 zeroarg function in functional programming. Unit will be explained later
 in the "Hello World" folder.
result_of_function :: Int
result_of_function = 4 + 5  9
one_arg_function :: ParameterType > ReturnType
one_arg_function argument = bodyThatReturnsType
two_arg_function :: ParameterType1 > ParameterType2 > ReturnType
two_arg_function argument1 argument2 = bodyThatReturnsType
n_arg_function :: ParameterType1 > { ... ParameterTypeN > ... } ReturnType
n_arg_function arg1 { arg2 arg3 ... argN } = bodyThatReturnsType
function_using_inline_syntax :: (Int > Int)
function_using_inline_syntax = (\x > x + 4)
{ function }
function_that_takes_a_function :: Int > (Int > String) > String
function_that_takes_a_function i f = f i
{ function }
function_that_returns_a_function :: Int > (Int > Int)
function_that_returns_a_function x = (\y > y + x)
 Note: a "higher order function" either takes a function as an argument
 or returns a function
 examples
takes_a_function :: String
takes_a_function =
function_that_takes_a_function 3 (\x > show x)
 show: converts `Int` to `String`
 outputs: "3"
returns_a_function :: Int
returns_a_function =
(function_that_returns_a_function 4) 10
 outputs: 14
 reason: (\10 > 10 + 4)
 necessary to make this file compile
type ValueType = String
type ParameterType = String
type ParameterType1 = String
type ParameterType2 = String
type ReturnType = String
bodyThatReturnsType :: ReturnType
bodyThatReturnsType = "return value"
bodyOfFunction :: ReturnType
bodyOfFunction = "body of inline function"
02FunctionCurrying.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Function.Currying where
 Remember this function?
one_arg_function_syntax_sugar :: ParameterType > ReturnType
one_arg_function_syntax_sugar argument = bodyThatReturnsType
 it's syntax sugar for
one_arg_function_no_syntax_sugar :: Function ParameterType ReturnType
one_arg_function_no_syntax_sugar argument = bodyThatReturnsType
 Which means this function...
two_arg_function0 :: ParameterType1 > ParameterType2 > ReturnType
two_arg_function0 argument1 argument2 = bodyThatReturnsType
 is in a "curried" form. In reality, it's
two_arg_function1 :: ParameterType1 > (ParameterType2 > ReturnType)
two_arg_function1 argument1 argument2 = bodyThatReturnsType
 or without syntax sugar
two_arg_function2 :: Function ParameterType1 (ParameterType2 > ReturnType)
two_arg_function2 argument1 argument2 = bodyThatReturnsType
 and removing the last one
two_arg_function3 :: Function ParameterType1 (Function ParameterType2 ReturnType)
two_arg_function3 argument1 argument2 = bodyThatReturnsType
{
In other words, give me an argument (ParameterType1) and I'll return a
function (ParameterType2 > ReturnType). If you give that function
a parameter (ParameterType2), then it'll give you the ReturnType.
Since this happens in the background, we don't usually need to think about
it, but it is an important distinction to make as it creates the following
Javascript code:
two_arg_function = function (ParameterType1) > {
return function (ParameterType2) > {
return bodyThatReturnsType;
}
}
}
 necessary to compile
type ParameterType = String
type ParameterType1 = String
type ParameterType2 = String
type ReturnType = String
bodyThatReturnsType :: String
bodyThatReturnsType = "body"
03AbbreviatedFunctionBody.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Function.BodyAbbreviation where
import Prelude
 if the body of a function is another function that expects an argument,
 one can omit the argument entirely.
 Note: 'show' converts a value of most types into a `String` value.
function_normal :: Int > String
function_normal x = show x
 is the same as ...
function_abbreviated :: Int > String
function_abbreviated { x } = show { x }
 which is better written as ...
function_abbreviated2 :: Int > String
function_abbreviated2 = show
 example
exampleAbbreviation2 :: Boolean
exampleAbbreviation2 = (function_abbreviated2 4) == "4"
 Going from "function_normal" to "function_abbreviated2" is called
 "etareduction".
 Goind from "function_abbreviated2" to "function_normal" is called
 "etaexpansion" or "etaabstraction"
warning :: String
warning = """
Sometimes, using an abbreviated function / etareduction will cause problems.
See this issue for more details:
https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/950
To fix it, just unabbreviate the function body by etaexpanding it
(i.e. include the argument):
 change this:
f :: Int > String
f = show
 to
f' :: Int > String
f' x = show x
"""
04KeywordData.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.Data where
 Basic syntax for the `data` keyword
 For most of these examples, we will not need to use explicit kind signatures.
data Singleton_no_Args = SingletonConstructor
data Singleton_with_Args = SingletonConstructor2 Arg1 Arg2 ArgN
data Singleton_with_Function_Arg
= SingletonConstructor3 (ParameterType > ReturnType)
data Type_with_Many_Implmementations
= Implementation1
 Implementation2
 ImplementationN
data Type_with_Generic_Types aType bType
= Stores_A aType
 Stores_B bType
 Stores_A_and_B aType bType
 We can refer to various parts in these definitions by the following names.
 Wherever a name appears, that's what you would call it if you were talking
 to someone else about it. In this example, we will need a kind signature
 because `typeParameter` isn't used in the data constructor.
data TypeConstructor :: Type > Type
data TypeConstructor typeParameter = DataConstructor

 This syntax enables Algebraic Data Types (ADTs)
 For an explanation on how 'data types' can be 'algebraic,' see this video:
 https://youtu.be/Up7LcbGZFuo?t=19m8s
 2 basic version of ADTs: sum type and product type
 the sum type
data SumType
= SumConstructor1
 SumConstructor2
 SumConstructorN
 example
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
 Orange
 the product type
data ProductType a b = ProductConstructor a b
 example
data IntAndString = IAndS Int String

 Intermediate/Advance syntax
 given this code
data Box a = Box a
 then...
data Type_with_Nested_Types
= SingleBox Int
 NestedBox1 (Box Int)
 NestedBox2 (Box (Box Int))  outer Box's "a" is "(Box Int)"
data Type_with_Higher_Kinded_Type f = TypeValue (f Int)
typeWithHigherKindedTypeExample :: Type_with_Higher_Kinded_Type Box
typeWithHigherKindedTypeExample = TypeValue (Box 4)
data Type_with_Higher_Kinded_Generic_Type higherKindedBy1 a
= MyConstructor (higherKindedBy1 a)
 OtherC (higherKindedBy1 Int)
data Type_with_Higher_Kinded_Generic_Type2 higherKindedBy2 a b
= MyConstructor2 (higherKindedBy2 a b)
 OtherCInt (higherKindedBy2 Int b)
 OtherCIntString (higherKindedBy2 Int String)
 In the next two examples, we need an explicit kind signature.
 The reason will become more evident in later files, but you will
 understand it in full when you read through the TypeLevel Syntax folder
 ============================================================================
 Since `a` and `b` aren't defined here, we need an explicit kind signature
data Type_With_HigherKindedByTwo_Generic
:: (Type > Type > Type)  higherKindedBy2
> Type  a
> Type  b
> Type  the "concrete" type
data Type_With_HigherKindedByTwo_Generic higherKindedBy2 a b
= Example (higherKindedBy2 a b)
 Since `ignoredType` isn't used in one of the data constructors
 we need an explicit kind signature.
data Type_whose_implementations_ignore_generic_type :: Type > Type
data Type_whose_implementations_ignore_generic_type ignoredType
= Constructor_without_generic_type
 Other_Constructor_no_generic_type Int String
 ============================================================================
data Type_with_no_implementation  no equals sign followed by righthandside
data Recursive_Type
= No_Recursion_Here
 Recursion_Here Recursive_Type
 Recursion_Here (Recursion_Here (No_Recursion_Here))
data Recursive_type_with_generic_type a
= End_Recursion_Here
 Recursion_Here__Store_A a (Recursive_type_with_generic_type a)
{
Recursion_Here__Store_A "first"
(Recursion_Here__Store_A "second"
End_Recursion_Here)
}

 Full Syntax
 Here we need a kind signature because `ignored` does not appear
 in any of the below data constructors.
data DataType :: Type > Type > (Type > Type) > Type > Type
data DataType aType bType hktBy1 ignored
= NoArgs
 Args Type1 Type2 Type3
 FunctionArg (Type1 > Type2)
 NestedArg (Box Int)
 DoubleNestedArg (Box (Box Int))
 HigherKindedGenericType1 (hktBy1 Int)
 HigherKindedGenericType2 (hktBy1 aType)
 Recursive (DataType aType bType hktBy1 ignored)
 ArgMix Type_ (A > B) bType (DataType aType bType hktBy1 ignored)
 Necessary for this to compile
type Type1 = Int
type Type2 = Int
type Type3 = Int
type Type_ = Int
type A = Int
type B = Int
type Arg1 = Int
type Arg2 = Int
type ArgN = Int
type ParameterType = Int
type ReturnType = Int
05PatternMatchinginFunctions.purs
module Syntax.Basic.PatternMatching where
import Prelude
 Given a data type like this:
data Fruit
= Apple
 Orange
 Banana
 Cherry
 Tomato  because why not!?
 Pattern Matching: Basic idea and order of matching
mkString :: Fruit > String {
if the arg is _ = then return _ }
mkString Apple = "apple"
{ else if the arg is _ = then return _ }
mkString Orange = "orange"
{ else if the arg is _ = then return _ }
mkString Banana = "banana"
{ else if the arg is _ = then return _ }
mkString Cherry = "cherry"
{ else if the arg is _ = then return _ }
mkString Tomato = "tomato"
 The above pattern match is "exhaustive" because there are no other
 Fruit values against which one could match.
 Pattern Matching: Literal values and catching all values
literalValue :: String > String
literalValue "a" = "Return this string if arg is 'a'"
literalValue "b" = "Return this string if arg is 'b'"
literalValue "c" = "Return this string if arg is 'c'"
literalValue _ = "ignore input and return this default value"
 syntax sugar for patternmatching literal arrays
array :: Array Int > String
array [] = "an empty array"
array [0] = "an array with one value that is 0"
array [0, 1] = "an array with two values, 0 and 1"
array [0, 1, a, b] = "an array with four values, starting with 0 and 1 \
\ and binding the third and fouth to names 'a' and 'b'"
array [1, _ ] = "an array of two values, '1' and another value that \
\ will not be used in the body of this function."
array _ = "catchall for arrays. This is needed to make this \
\ example compile"
 Pattern Matching: Unwrapping Data Constructors
data A_Type
= AnInt Int
 Outer A_Type  recursive type!
 Inner Int
f :: A_Type > String {
 Syntax
f patternMatch = bodyToRunIfPatternWasMatched
where 'patternMatch' is:
 literal value
 DataConstructorWithNoArgs
 (DataConstructor withArgBoundToThisBinding)
 (DataConstructor "with arg whose value is this literal value")
 bindingForEntireValue@(literalValue)
 bindingForEntireValue@(DataConstructorWithNoArgs)
 bindingForEntireValue@(DataConstructor withArgBoundToThisBinding)
 bindingForEntireValue@(DataConstructor "with arg whose value is this literal value")
 Example
f the pattern match = description of what was matched }
f (Inner 0) = "a value of type Inner whose value is 0"
f (Inner int) = "a value of type Inner, binding its value to 'int' \
\name for usage in function body"
f (Outer (Inner int)) = "a value of type Outer, whose Inner value is bound \
\to `int` name for usage in function body"
f object@(AnInt 4) = "a value of type AnInt whose value is '4', \
\binding the entire object to the `object` name for \
\usage in function body"
f _ = "ignores input and matches everything; \
\acts as a default / catch all case"
 Pattern Matching: Regular Guards
g :: Int > Int > String {
g x y  condition1 = return this if condition1 is true
 condition2 = return this if condition2 is true
 ... = ...
 conditionN = return this if conditionN is true
 otherwise = default case}
g x y  x + y == 0 = "x == y"
 x  y == 0 = "x == y"
 x * y == 0 = "x == 0  y == 0"
 otherwise = "some other value"
 Pattern Matching: Single and Multiple Guards
h :: Int > Int > String
h x y  x == 4 && y == 5 = "body"
  condition1, condition2 = body
 x == 4, y == 6 = "body"
{ ... or when using syntax sugar...
 condition1
, condition2 = body }
 x == 3
, y == 2 = "body"
 It's wise to separate mulitple guards with a blank line for readability.
 otherwise = "default"
 Pattern Matching: Single Pattern Guard
j :: Int > String {
j x  returnedValue < function arg1 arg2 argN = body if match occurs }
j x  (Box 2) < toBox x = "Calling toBox x returned a Box with 2 inside of it"
 (Box y) < toBox x = concat "The 'y' value was: " (toString y)
 Pattern Matching: Multiple Pattern Guards
p :: Int > Int > String {
p x y  returnedValue1 < functionCall1, returnedValue2 < functionCall2 = body }
p x y  (Box 2) < toBox x, (Box 3) < toBox (x  1) = "without syntax sugar"
{ ... or for easier reading, there is sugar syntax:
p x y  returnedValue1 < functionCall1
, returnedValue2 < functionCall2 = body }
 (Box a) < toBox x
, (Box b) < toBox (x * 2) = "with syntax sugar"
 otherwise = "some other value"
 Different guards can be mixed:
q :: Int > Int > String
q x y  x == 3 = "3"
 x == 5, y == 5 = "5"
 (Box 2) < toBox x = "2?"
 (Box 2) < toBox x
, y == 4 = "curious, no?"
 (Box a) < toBox x
, (Box b) < toBox (y * 2) = "something?"
 otherwise = "catchall"
 necessary for this to compile
data Box a = Box a
toBox :: Int > Box Int
toBox 1 = Box 2
toBox _ = Box 0
concat :: String > String > String
concat left right = left <> right
toString :: forall a. Show a => a > String
toString = show
01TypedHoles.purs
module Syntax.Basic.SpecialCompilerFeatures.Holes where
{
Original credit: @paf31 / @kritzcreek
Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/23.markdown
Changes made:
 use metalanguage to explain syntax and give a few very simple examples
Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US

Sometimes, when writing code, we're not always sure which function/value
we should use. In such cases, we can use a feature called
"Typed Holes" / "Type Directed Search" to ask the compiler to tell us
what it thinks should go there.
This feature can often be very helpful when debugging a compiler error
or when exploring a new library for the first time.
Syntax:
`?placeholderName`
Replace the function/value you want the compiler to suggest for you with
the above syntax.
}
 Note to self: don't delete this as functions from Prelude will be suggested below
import Prelude
warning :: String
warning =
"""
When we compile our code and it includes a hole,
the compiler will output a compiler error.
The error message will include the compiler's guess as to what should
be put there.
Since this outputs a compiler error, we have to comment out the following code
to make this project build on Travis CI and on local computers
Uncomment the following examples, one at a time, and then build the folder to
see how it works
"""
 This example will show what the type signature for "?placeholder_name"
 should be.
 example1 :: Int > String
 example1 i = ?placeholder_name i
 Caveats: While this file has 2 "holes," the second one will not be reported
 by the compiler because it produces an error at the first hole. Thus,
 this feature can only be used once in a project per compilation.
 notice the infix notation used here via the backticks
 example2 :: String
 example2 = "hello" `?I_Don't_know` " world"
 example3 :: Int
 example3 = 1 + ?what_could_this_be
02TypedWildcards.purs
module Syntax.Basic.SpecialCompilerFeatures.TypedWildcards where
{
Sometimes, when writing code, we're not always sure what type something
should be in a type signature.
In such cases, we can use a feature called "typed wildcards"
to ask the compiler to tell us which type it thinks should go there.
This feature can often be very helpful when debugging a compiler error
or when exploring a new library for the first time.
Typed Wildcards can be either unnamed ("_") or named "?name".
Named typed wildcards will emit a compiler error whereas
unnamed typed wildcards will emit a compiler warning.
}
someValue :: _  unnamed typed wildcard
someValue =
"""
The '_' character above is an unnamed typed wildcard
It will produce a compiler warning whose message will include
the compiler's guess as to what goes there.
"""
 Uncomment the below code and then rebuild the folder to see what happens
 someValue2 :: ?TellMeTheType
 someValue2 =
 """
 The "?name" syntax above is a named typed wildcard.
 It will produce a compiler error whose message will include
 the compiler's guess as to which type goes there.
 """
01KeywordForall.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.Forall where
import Prelude
{
When using generic data types in functions, such as the one below...
genericFunction0 :: a > a
Read:
Given a value of any type,
this function will return a value of the same type. }
 ... we need to explicitly say the function works for all types.
 We do so by adding the "forall a." syntax to the front of our
 type signature. Note: the "forall" syntax is still a part of our type
 signature, but it always appears first before anything else.
genericFunction1 :: forall aType { bType ... nType }. aType > aType
genericFunction1 x = x
{ Read:
For any type,
which we'll refer to as, 'a',
when given a value of type 'a',
then I will return a value of type 'a'
}
genericFunction2 :: forall a b c. a > b > c > a
genericFunction2 a b c = a
{ Read:
For any three types,
which we'll refer to as, 'a', 'b', and 'c',
when given
a value of type 'a', and
a value of type 'b', and
a value of type 'c',
then I will return a value of type 'a'
}
 Sometimes, we'll see multiple 'forall' in the same type signature.

 f :: forall a b. a > b > (forall c. c > String) > String

 These are called "RankN Types."
 This means that the third argument, the function with `forall c`,
 can be used on different types. Thus, we can write something like this:
ignoreArg_returnString :: forall a. a > String
ignoreArg_returnString _ = "some string"
example :: forall a b. a > b > (forall c. c > String) > String
example a b function = concat (function a) (function b)
testExample :: String
testExample = example true 5 ignoreArg_returnString
 needed to compile
concat :: String > String > String
concat = append
02KeywordType.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.Type where
 Syntax
type TypeAliasForCompileTime = RunTimeType
 Example
type ComplexFunction = Int > (forall a b. a > (forall c. c> b) > b)
 and then use it here:
 someFunction :: String > ComplexFunction > ReturnType
 One could also do this...

type Age = Int
{
functionName :: ParamType1 > ReturnType }
functionName :: Age > String
 'Age' is a more descriptive type name than 'Int'
functionName age = "body"

 ... but to do the above, one should use `newtype` instead,
 which is explained later.
 a type alias can also take a type parameter
type ConvertAToString a = (a > String)
example :: forall a. a > ConvertAToString a > String
example a convertAToString = convertAToString a
 Type aliases also have kind signatures. The above examples have
 implicit kind signatures. The below example has an explicit one:
data Pair a b = Pair a b
 kind signature (implicit): Type > Type
 reason: the `a` needs to be defined before we have a "concrete" type alias
type IntAnd a = Pair Int a
type IntAnd_ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Type
type IntAnd_ExplicitKindSignature a = Pair Int a
type SomeTypeAndInt :: Type > Type
type SomeTypeAndInt a = Pair a Int
 required to get this to compile correctly
data RunTimeType
03KeywordsCaseexpressionof.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.CaseOf where
import Prelude
 Returning to our previous basic pattern match example:
data Fruit
= Apple
 Orange
 Banana
 Cherry
 Tomato
 The following is tedious to write due to rewriting 'mkString' on every line:
mkString :: Fruit > String
mkString Apple = "apple"
mkString Orange = "orange"
mkString Banana = "banana"
mkString Cherry = "cherry"
mkString Tomato = "tomato"
 Fortunately, there is an easier way using 'case _ of' syntax:
function1 :: String > String
function1 expression =
 syntax
case expression of
 pattern match > bodyOfFunctionIfMatched
 These show a few examples from pattern matching
"patternMatch1" > bodyOfFunction
"patternMatch2" > bodyOfFunction
x  length x == 4 > bodyOfFunction  guards are also allowed here
 length x == 5 > bodyOfFunction
_ > bodyOfFunction  catch all
 If 'expression' is the next argument in a function, we could decide
 to not bind to name (e.g. 'a') and instead use function abbreviation
 using the underscore syntax:
data Data = Constructor1  Constructor2  Constructor3  ConstructorN
function2 :: Data > String
function2 = case _ of
Constructor1 > bodyOfFunction
Constructor2 > bodyOfFunction
Constructor3 > bodyOfFunction
_ > bodyOfFunction  catch all
 Returning to our example
mkString2 :: Fruit > String
mkString2 = case _ of
Apple > "apple"
Orange > "orange"
Banana > "banana"
Cherry > "cherry"
Tomato > "tomato"
 We can also match multiple expressions by adding commas between them:
 Syntax:
function3 :: String > String > String
function3 firstExpression secondExpression =
case firstExpression, secondExpression {, nExpression } of
"firstResultPatternMatch", "secondResultPM" {, nResult } > bodyOfFunction
"firstResultPatternMatch", "secondResultPM" {, nResult } > bodyOfFunction
_, _ > bodyOfFunction  catchall
 example
mkString3 :: Fruit > Fruit > String
mkString3 a b = case a, b of
Apple, Apple > "Two apples"
Apple, Cherry > "An apple and a cherry"
_, _ > "You didn't really think I would type out all of them, did you?!?"
 This compiles: Pattern Matching > Case > Pattern guard
test :: Int > Boolean
test a
 false =
case false of
true  a > 12 > true
_ > false
 otherwise = true
 Necessary to get this file to compile
length :: String > Int
length _ = 4
bodyOfFunction :: String
bodyOfFunction = "body of function"
04KeywordsWhereandLetIn.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.WhereAndLetIn where
import Prelude
data Box a = Box a
{
The 'let..in' keywords and the `where` keyword enables us to break large
functions down into smaller functions (or values) that compose. }
{
The 'let...in' syntax lets us define "bindings" before we use them
in the block that follows the `in` keyword: }
letInFunction1 :: String > String
letInFunction1 expression =
let
 Start of the "let" block
binding = expression
 End of the "let" block
in
 Start of the "in" block
somethingThatUses binding  wherever `binding` is used, we mean `expression`
 End of the "in" block
{
We can define multiple bindings. Earlier bindings cannot refer to later
bindings, but later ones can refer to earlier ones. }
letInFunction2 :: String > String > String
letInFunction2 expression1 expression2 =
let
 Start of the "let" block
binding1 = expression1
binding2 = expression2
binding3 = binding1
 End of the "let" block
in
 Start of the "in" block
somethingThatUses (binding1 <> binding2 <> binding3)
 End of the "in" block
letInFunction2_WithTypeSignatures :: String > String > String
letInFunction2_WithTypeSignatures expression1 expression2 =
let
 we can also add type signatures above the bindings to help with
 readability or type inference.
binding1 :: String
binding1 = expression1
binding2 :: String
binding2 = expression2
in
somethingThatUses (binding1 <> binding2)
 One can also define functions as a let binding
letInFunction3 :: String > String
letInFunction3 value =
let
function "firstMatch" = bodyOfPatternMatch
function "secondMatch" = bodyOfPatternMatch
function catchAll = bodyOfPatternMatch
in
function value
letInFunction3_WithTypeSignatures :: String > String
letInFunction3_WithTypeSignatures value =
let
function :: String > String
function "firstMatch" = bodyOfPatternMatch
function "secondMatch" = bodyOfPatternMatch
function catchAll = bodyOfPatternMatch
in
function value
 One can also use guards with let
letWithGuards :: Int > String
letWithGuards x =
let result
 x == 0 = "zero"
 x == 1 = "one"
 otherwise = "something else"
in computeSomethingWithString result
 Let bindings can also have type signatures. We'll see in the next file
 why this can be very important.
letWithGuards_WithTypeSignatures :: Int > String
letWithGuards_WithTypeSignatures x =
let
result :: String
result
 x == 0 = "zero"
 x == 1 = "one"
 otherwise = "something else"
in computeSomethingWithString result
{
The `where` clause is "syntax sugar" for let bindings.
Using the `where` clause, we could rewrite the below function using the
`where` clause
whereFunction0 = let x = 4 in x }
whereFunction0 :: Int
whereFunction0 = x
where
x = 4
 Here is a more typical example where multiple bindings are defined
 in a single "where block"
whereFunction1 :: String > String > Int
whereFunction1 arg1 arg2 =
returnFour (madeUpFunction arg1 arg2) 9
where
 functions defined below the 'where' keyword can be used in the main
 function and any other madeup functions defined in this block
madeUpFunction :: String > String > Int
madeUpFunction s1 s2 =
returnFour (createComplexDataTypeUsing s1)
(mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 s2)
createComplexDataTypeUsing :: String > Box String
createComplexDataTypeUsing s = Box s
 Note: If 'whereFunction1' had used 'forall' syntax above to specify
 generic types, we would not need to respecify them in any madeup functions
 that appear in this where block. However, since we want `returnFour` to work
 for multiple types, we'll need to specify that here.
returnFour :: forall a b. a > b > Int
returnFour _ _ = 4
 Mutually recursive functions are allowed
mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 :: String > String
mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 "a" = "a"
mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 x = mutuallyRecursiveFunction2 (x <> "b")  "<>" means concat
mutuallyRecursiveFunction2 :: String > String
mutuallyRecursiveFunction2 "b" = mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 "b"
mutuallyRecursiveFunction2 x = mutuallyRecursiveFunction1 "a"
{
See the indentation rules to correctly indent your `where` clause
and the expressions that define a given binding.
}
 necessary to make this file compile:
somethingThatUses :: String > String
somethingThatUses x = x
bodyOfPatternMatch :: String
bodyOfPatternMatch = "body of pattern match"
computeSomethingWithString :: String > String
computeSomethingWithString _ = "string value"
05IndentationRules.purs
module Syntax.Basic.IndentationRules where
import Prelude
 Indentation Rules:
function_normal :: String > String
function_normal a = bodyOfFunction
function_body_indented :: String > String
function_body_indented a = { this shows valid and invalid indentation:
wrongIndentation }
validAndConventional <>
validButNotConventional {
and so forth... }
whereFunction1 :: String > String
whereFunction1 a = validFunctionPosition1 <> validFunctionPosition2 <> validValuePosition
where
validFunctionPosition1 :: TypeSignature
validFunctionPosition1 = "a"
validFunctionPosition2 :: TypeSignature
validFunctionPosition2 = "b"
validValuePosition :: TypeSignature
validValuePosition = "c"
whereFunction2 :: String > String
whereFunction2 a = validFunctionPosition1 <> validFunctionPosition2 <> validValuePosition
where
validFunctionPosition1 :: TypeSignature
validFunctionPosition1 = "a"
validFunctionPosition2 :: TypeSignature
validFunctionPosition2 = "b"
validValuePosition :: TypeSignature
validValuePosition = "c"
letInFunction1 :: String > String
letInFunction1 expression =
 this format makes it harder to add a new binding if more are needed
let binding = expression
in bodyOfFunctionThatUses binding
letInFunction2 :: String > String
letInFunction2 expression =
 this format makes it easy to add a new binding
let
binding = expression {
binding2 = some other expression }
in
bodyOfFunctionThatUses binding
 See the `do` notation syntax for how to use `let` properly there
 Necessary to make this file compile
type TypeSignature = String
bodyOfFunctionThatUses :: String > String
bodyOfFunctionThatUses x = x
bodyOfFunction :: String
bodyOfFunction = ""
validAndConventional :: String
validAndConventional = ""
validButNotConventional :: String
validButNotConventional = ""
06LetLacksGeneralization.purs
module Syntax.Basic.LetLacksGeneralization where
import Prelude
{
We saw previously that we can define functions inside a `let` binding
and use it later after the `in`. The below example does NOT have a type
signature annotating it. }
letBindingExample :: Int
letBindingExample =
let
add4 x = x + 4
in add4 6  outputs 10
{
We also saw that we can add type signatures to the `let` binding
to make it easier to read: }
letBindingExampleWithTypeSignature :: Int
letBindingExampleWithTypeSignature =
let
add4 :: Int > Int
add4 x = x + 4
in add4 6
{
All of the above examples use monomorphism (i.e. each function only works
on 1 type / there IS NOT a "forall" anywhere), not polymorphism
(i.e. each function works on multiple types / there IS a "forall" somewhere).
In some situations, we may want to use polymorphism/"forall" in our
`let` bindings: }
letBindingWithPolymorphicTypeSignature :: Int
letBindingWithPolymorphicTypeSignature =
let
ignoreArgumentAndReturn4 :: forall a. a > Int
ignoreArgumentAndReturn4 _ = 4
in
(ignoreArgumentAndReturn4 8) + (ignoreArgumentAndReturn4 "foo")
{
In the above example, when you remove the type signature above the let binding,
you will discover that "`let` bindings lack generalization". The below example
will not compile. You can uncomment it and see for yourself: }
 failsToCompile :: Int
 failsToCompile =
 let
  based on the usage below, it would appear that this function's
  type signature is "forall a. a > Int"
 polymorphicLetBindingWithNoTypeSignature _ = 4
 in
 (polymorphicLetBindingWithNoTypeSignature 8) +  argument is Int
 (polymorphicLetBindingWithNoTypeSignature "foo")  argument is String
{
Running `failsToCompile` will produce the following error:
Error found:
in module Syntax.Basic.LetLacksGeneralization
at src/04VariousKeywords/05LetLacksGeneralization.purs:48:34  48:39 (line 48, column 34  line 48, column 39)
Could not match type
String
with type
Int
while checking that type String
is at least as general as type Int
while checking that expression "foo"
has type Int
in value declaration failsToCompile
See https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/errors/TypesDoNotUnify.md for more information,
or to contribute content related to this error.
}
{
When the compiler comes across the first usage of
`polymorphicLetBindingWithNoTypeSignature`, the type of the first argument, 8,
is Int. Rather than making this binding polymorphic, the compiler assumes
that the function is monomorphic and its type signature will be
"Int > Int". Thus, when it encounters the second usage of the function,
`polymorphicLetBindingWithNoTypeSignature "foo"`, it fails because
`String` is not the same type as `Int`.
This missing feature is called "`let` generalization." Its absence is
intentional. For more context, see the paper titled,
"Let should not be generalized"
https://www.microsoft.com/enus/research/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/tldi10vytiniotis.pdf
}
{
Since the `where` clause is syntax sugar for `let` bindings, this issue can
also arise when you use bindings in the `where` clauses that are polymorphic
and do not have a type signature.
}
 alsoFailsToCompile :: Int
 alsoFailsToCompile =
 (polymorphicFunctionWithNoTypeSignature 8) +  argument is Int
 (polymorphicFunctionWithNoTypeSignature "foo")

 where
 polymorphicFunctionWithNoTypeSignature _ = 4
 This version will compile because the type signature
 has been specified.
polymorphicWhereClauseWithTypeSignature :: Int
polymorphicWhereClauseWithTypeSignature =
(polymorphicFunctionWithTypeSignature 8) +  argument is Int
(polymorphicFunctionWithTypeSignature "foo")
where
polymorphicFunctionWithTypeSignature :: forall a. a > Int
polymorphicFunctionWithTypeSignature _ = 4
07KeywordsIfThenElse.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Keyword.IfThenElse where
 There's support for ifthenelse statements
test1 :: Boolean > String
test1 condition = if condition then "true path" else "false path"
 Or write it like this
test2 :: Boolean > String
test2 condition =
if condition
then "true path"
else "false path"
 Or this
test3 :: Boolean > String
test3 condition =
if
condition
then
"true path"
else
"false path"
 One can also write nested ifthenelseifthenelse statements
test4 :: forall a. (a > Boolean) > (a > Boolean) > a > String
test4 condition1 condition2 a =
if condition1 a then "first path"
else if condition2 a then "second path"
else "default path"
01BasicSyntax.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Record.Basic where
import Prelude
 Records have a different kind than "Type"
 Their kind signature is `Row Type > Type`.
 `Row` kinds are 0 to N number of "labeltokind" associations
 that are known at compile time. `Row` kinds will be covered more fully
 in the TypeLevel Programming Syntax folder.
 Most of the time, you will see the labels associated with the kind, `Type`.
 In other words:
type Example_Row = (rowLabel :: ValueType)
 Rows can have 1 or many labelType associations...
type Example_of_a_Single_Row = (labelName :: ValueType)
type Example_of_a_Multiple_Rows = (first :: ValueType, second :: ValueType)
type PS_Keywords_Can_Be_Label_Names =
(data :: ValueType, type :: ValueType, class :: ValueType)
 Rows can also have kind signatures. The rightmost entity/kind
 will be `Row Type`:
type SingleRow_KindSignature :: Row Type
type SingleRow_KindSignature = (labelName :: ValueType)
type MultipleRows_KindSignature :: Row Type
type MultipleRows_KindSignature = (first :: ValueType, second :: ValueType)
 Rows can also be empty.
type Example_of_an_Empty_Row :: Row Type
type Example_of_an_Empty_Row = ()
 Rows can take type parameters just like data, type, and newtype:
type Takes_A_Type_Parameter :: Type > Row Type
type Takes_A_Type_Parameter a = (someLabel :: Box a)
 That's enough about rows for now.
 Let's see why they are useful for Records.
data Record_  Row Type > Type
 Think of records as a JavaScript object / HashMap / big product types.
 There are keys (the labels) that refer to values of a given type.
type RecordType_Desugared = Record ( label1 :: String
 , ...
, labelN :: Int
, function :: (String > String)
)
 However, there is syntax sugar for writing this:
 "Record ( rows )" becomes "{ rows }"
type RecordType = { label1 :: String
 , ...
, labelN :: Int
, function :: String > String
}
 ## Create Records
 We can create a record using the "{ label: value }" syntax...
createRec_colonSyntax :: RecordType
createRec_colonSyntax = { label1: "value", labelN: 1, function: (\x > x) }
 We can also create it using the "names exist in immediate context" syntax
createRec_immediateContextSyntax :: RecordType
createRec_immediateContextSyntax = { label1, labelN, function }
where
label1 = "value"
labelN = 1
function = \x > x
 We can also create it using the "label names exist in external context" syntax
 Given the below record type...
type PersonRecord = { username :: String
, age :: Int
, isCool :: String > Boolean
}
 ... and some values/functions with the same name as that record's labels...
username :: String
username = "Bob"
age :: Int
age = 4
isCool :: String > Boolean
isCool _ = true
 ... the compiler will infer below that 'username' should be "Bob"
 because `username` is a value that exists in this module.
 Note: this syntax won't pick up things that exist in other files.
createRec_externalContextSyntax :: PersonRecord
createRec_externalContextSyntax = { username, age, isCool }
createRec_noUnderscore :: String > Int > (String > String) > RecordType
createRec_noUnderscore label1 labelN function = { label1, labelN, function }
createRec_withUnderscore :: String > Int > (String > String) > RecordType
createRec_withUnderscore = { label1: _, labelN: _, function: _ }
 same type signature as 'createRec_withUnderscore'
type InlineWithUnderscoreType = String > Int > (String > String) > RecordType
inlineExample1 :: InlineWithUnderscoreType
inlineExample1 =
\label1 labelN function > { label1: label1, labelN: labelN, function: function }
inlineExample2 :: InlineWithUnderscoreType
inlineExample2 = { label1: _ , labelN: _ , function: _ }
 ## Get the corresponding values in records
getLabel1 :: RecordType > String
getLabel1 obj = obj.label1
 ## Overwrite Labels' Values in Records
 We can update a record using syntax sugar:
overwriteLabelValue_equalsOperator :: RecordType > String > RecordType
overwriteLabelValue_equalsOperator rec string = rec { label1 = string }
 or by using an underscore to indicate that the next argument is the
 record type
setLabelValue_recordUnderscore :: String > RecordType > RecordType
setLabelValue_recordUnderscore string = _ { label1 = string } {
setLabelValue_recordUnderscore "bar" { label1: "foo" } == { label1: "bar" } }
 or by using an underscore for both args if they come in the correct order:
 record first and then the argument to apply to that record's label
setLabelValue_recordAndArgUnderscore :: RecordType > String > RecordType
setLabelValue_recordAndArgUnderscore = _ { label1 = _ } {
setLabelValue_recordAndArgUnderscore { label1: "foo" } "bar" == { label1: "bar" } }
syntaxReminder :: String
syntaxReminder = """
Don't confuse the two operators that go inbetween label and value!
"label OPERATOR value" where OPERATOR is
"=" means "update the label of a record that already exists":
record { label = newValue }
":" means "create a new record by specifying the label's value":
{ label: initialValue }
"""
 ## Nested Records
type NestedRecordType = { person :: { skills :: { name :: String } } }
nestedRecord_create :: String > NestedRecordType
nestedRecord_create newName = { person: { skills: { name: newName } } }
nestedRecord_get :: NestedRecordType > String
nestedRecord_get rec = rec.person.skills.name
nestedRecord_overwrite1 :: String > NestedRecordType > NestedRecordType
nestedRecord_overwrite1 newName p = p { person { skills { name = newName } } }
nestedRecord_overwrite2 :: String > NestedRecordType > NestedRecordType
nestedRecord_overwrite2 newName = _ { person { skills { name = newName } } }
nestedRecord_overwrite3 :: NestedRecordType > String > NestedRecordType
nestedRecord_overwrite3 = _ { person { skills { name = _ } } }
  This fails to compile because the fields aren't specified
 nestedRecord_overwrite4 :: NestedRecordType > String > NestedRecordType
 nestedRecord_overwrite4 = _ { _ { _ { name = _ } } }
 ## Pattern Matching on Records
 We can also pattern match on a record. The label names must match
 the label names of the record
patternMatch_allLabels :: Int
patternMatch_allLabels =
let { label1, label2 } = { label1: 3, label2: 5 }
in label1 + label2
patternMatch_someLabels :: String
patternMatch_someLabels =
 notice how we don't include 'label2' here
 in the pattern match
let { label1 } = { label1: "a", label2: "b" }
in label1
 needed to compile
type ValueType = String
data Box a = Box a
02QuotedKeySyntax.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Record.Quoted where
 Credit goes to Justin Woo where I found out this documentation
 was even possible:
 https://github.com/justinwoo/quotedrecordproperty/blob/master/src/Main.purs
type QuotedKey = { "key" :: String }
creation :: QuotedKey
creation = { "key" : "value" }
getValue :: String
getValue = creation."key"
emojiKey :: String
emojiKey = { "😆" : "value" }."😆"
asianLanguageKey :: String
asianLanguageKey = { "日本語" : "Japanese" }."日本語"
03RowPolymorphism.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Record.RowPolymorphism where
import Prelude
 We can also use literal records in our function type signatures:
getName1 :: { name :: String } > String
getName1 { name: nameValue } = nameValue
getName2 :: { name :: String } > String
getName2 person = person.name  this syntax also works
 example
test1 :: Boolean
test1 =
(getName1 { name: "hello" }) == "hello"
{
However, this definition does not allow additional fields.
The following code...
getName1 { name: "hello", age: 4 }
...will output a compiler error since no other fields are allowed!
}
{
Rows can either be "closed" or "open." "Closed" rows means that we will
not be adding any other 'fields' to it at a later time. So far, we
have only shown examples of "closed" rows.
"Open" rows means that we might add more 'fields' to it at a later time.
We'll now show the syntax for that.
}
 open rows
type Example_of_Closed_Row = (first :: ValueType)
type Example_of_Open_Row additionalRows = (first :: ValueType  additionalRows)
type Closed_Record1 = Record (first :: ValueType)
type Open_Record1 r = Record (first :: ValueType  r)
type Closed_Record2 = { first :: ValueType }
type Open_Record2 r = { first :: ValueType  r}
type OpenRecord1 rowsAreDefinedLater = Record (  rowsAreDefinedLater)
type OpenRecord2 rowsAreDefinedLater = {  rowsAreDefinedLater}
{
We can get rid of the compiler error by using open rows and row polymorphism
The below function can be read as
"Given a record that has the field, 'name',
and zero or more other rows I don't care about,
I can give you a String value." }
rowPolymorphism1 :: forall anyOtherFieldsThatMayExist
. { name :: String  anyOtherFieldsThatMayExist }
> String
rowPolymorphism1 { name: nameValue } = nameValue
 Rather than the "anyOtherFieldsThatMayExist" type name, convention is to
 use "r" for "rows". Rewriting our above function to use 'r' convention:
getName4 :: forall r. { name :: String  r } > String
getName4 { name: nameValue } = nameValue
 examples
test2 :: Boolean
test2 =
(getName4 { name: "a name", age: 4, stuff: "?" }) == "a name"  now it works!
 A compiler error will arise when the required field doesn't exist,
 such as this example:

 getName4 { age: 4, stuff: "?" }
 needed to compile
type ValueType = String
01Regular.purs
module Syntax.Basic.InfixNotation.Regular where
import Prelude
two_arg_function :: Int > Int > Int
two_arg_function x y  x < 0 = (x + 1) * (y + 14)
 otherwise = y + x
infix_notation :: Int
infix_notation =
 infix notation available via backticks
(1 `two_arg_function` 2)
 becomes two_arg_function 1 2
data List a = Nil  Cons a (List a)
data Box a = Box a
 Some types given here to make things easier...
type TypeAlias = forall a b. List a > Box b
data DataType = Constructor Int Int
{
Infix Syntax:
infix/infixl/infixr precedence function/constructor as symbolicAlias
... or for type aliases:
infix/infixl/infixr precedence type TypeName as symbolicAlias
... where 'precedence' is a number (0..9)
and 'symbolicAlias' is a sequence of symbolic character(s)
(i.e. cannot use alphanumeric characters, nor an underscore character)
}
 Example
infixl 4 two_arg_function as >>
infix 2 Constructor as ?>
infix 4 type TypeAlias as :$>
mostCharactersForSymbolicAlias :: forall a. a > a
mostCharactersForSymbolicAlias x = x
 Notes:
 1. '@', '\', and '.' cannot be used alone (see next comment)
 2. the below symbols are the ones you will typically see. However,
 characters where Haskell's `isSymbol` returns true also work.
 (https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base4.14.1.0/docs/DataChar.html#v:isSymbol)
infix 4 mostCharactersForSymbolicAlias as ~!@#$%^&*+=\:<>./?
{
These characters, when used individually as aliases, are illegal:
infix 4 illegalAlias1 as \
^ That's reserved for lambdas
infix 4 illegalAlias2 as @
^ That's reserved for pattern matching: a@(Foo 1)
infix 4 illegalAlias3 as .
^ That's reserved for recordrelated things: foo.bar
}
 When used with more characters than themselves, they're fine and compile.
whenMultipleExist_itsFine :: forall a. a > a
whenMultipleExist_itsFine x = x
infix 4 whenMultipleExist_itsFine as \\
infix 4 whenMultipleExist_itsFine as @@
infix 4 whenMultipleExist_itsFine as ..
infix 4 whenMultipleExist_itsFine as \.
infix 4 whenMultipleExist_itsFine as .@
 Infix is all about where to put the parenthesis as indicated by precedence:
 precedence is 0 = group first
 n = group after first but before last
 9 = group last

 Each type of infix will be shown by reducing it to its final call
 make depth small (like a tree)
 infix 0 concatString as $$$$$
{ "a" $$$$$ "b" $$$$$ "c" $$$$$ "d"
== ("a" $$$$$ "b") $$$$$ ("c" $$$$$ "d"))
== ($$$$$ "a" "b") $$$$$ ($$$$$ "c" "d"))
== concatString (concatString "a" "b") (concatString "c" "d")  desugared
}
 infixl 9 concatString as >>
{ "a" >> "b" >> "c" >> "d"
== ("a" >> "b") >> "c" >> "d"
== (("a" >> "b") >> "c") >> "d"
== >> (("a" >> "b") >> "c") "d"
== >> (>> ("a" >> "b") "c") "d"
== >> (>> (>> "a" "b") "c") "d"
== concatString (concatString (concatString "a" "b") "c") "d"
}
 infixr 7 concatString as <<
{ "a" << "b" << "c" << "d"
== "a" << "b" << ("c" << "d")
== "a" << ("b" << ("c" << "d"))
== << "a" ("b" << ("c" << "d"))
== << "a" (<< "b" ("c" << "d"))
== << "a" (<< "b" (<< "c" "d"))
== concatString "a" (concatString "b" (concatString "c" "d"))
}
02Extended.purs
module Syntax.Basic.InfixNotation.Extended where
 Original credit: @paf31
 Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/1.markdown
 Changes made: use metalanguage to explain syntax of extended infix notation

 Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US
 regular infix
 function1 :: Type1 > Type2 > ReturnType
 function1 a b = ...

 a `function1` b
 Given a function with this signature...
function2 :: String > String > String > String
function2 first second third = "result"
example :: String
example = "second" `function2 "first"` "third"
 This can be useful for combining function if it reads well
 list1 `combineUsing concat` list2
 But it can also quickly lead to unreadable code
 Be careful and selective when using it.
07FunctionsandDatawithHigherKindedTypes.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Function.HigherKindedTypes where
import Prelude
 == Review ==
data Box a = Box a
 `Box a` is a higherkinded type (HKT). In other words,
 it has a kind of `Type > Type`, not `Type` like Int.
 Its 'a' still needs to be specified before it is fully concrete.
 we can define a function when the 'a' of Box is known ("Int" in this case)...
add1 :: Box Int > Box Int
add1 (Box x) = Box (x + 1)
 we can also define a function when 'a' of Box is not known
modify :: forall a. Box a > (a > a) > Box a
modify (Box a) function = Box (function a)
 However, how might one write a function that works on all of
 the four types below? In other words, how would we define a function
 when we know we will have a higherkinded type like `Box`, but
 we don't know the exact type of that Boxlike type?
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
data Box3 a = Box3 a
data Box4 a = Box4 a
 The following function shows the syntax to follow.
hktFunction0 :: forall f a. f a > f a
hktFunction0 boxN = boxN
{
Read
"f a"
as
"f is a higherkinded type
that needs one type, `a`, specified
before it can be a concrete type"
When using higherkinded types, convention is to start with `f` and continue
down the alphabet for each higherkinded type thereafter (e.g. `g`, `h`, etc.). }
hktFunction1 :: forall f g h a. f a > g a > h a > h a
hktFunction1 _ _ hOfA = hOfA
 I think the convention of using 'f' has something to do with a Type Class
 called Functor (covered in the HelloWorld folder).
 If the higherkinded type we want to include in our function takes more than
 one type, we just add the extra types beyond it
data HigherKindedTypeWith4Types a b c d = Constructor a b c d
hktFunction2 :: forall f a b c d. f a b c d > f a b c d
hktFunction2 f_abcd = f_abcd
{
Read the above
"f a b c d"
as
"f is a higherkinded type
that takes 4 types, 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd',
all of which need to be specified
before 'f' can be a concrete type"
}
 We can also specify specific types in the function:
hktFunction3 :: forall f a b c. f a b c Int > f a b c Int
hktFunction3 f_abc_Int = f_abc_Int
{
Read
"f a b c Int"
as
"f is a higherkinded type
that takes 4 types, 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd'.
'd' has already been specified to 'Int',
but
the other types (a, b, and c) have yet to be specified.
The compiler will complain
if one passes in an 'f' type whose fourth type is not an Int.
}
 Returning to our previous question...
boxFunction :: forall f a. f a > (f a > a) > (a > a) > (a > f a) > f a
boxFunction boxN unwrap changeA rewrap =
rewrap (changeA (unwrap boxN))
 The unwrap and rewrap functions in the above function are only needed to make
 this compile. In many functions, they won't be needed due to
 typeclasses (explained later).
 If we specified functions like below for each of the box type...
unwrapBox2 :: forall a. Box2 a > a
unwrapBox2 (Box2 a) = a
unwrapBox3 :: forall a. Box3 a > a
unwrapBox3 (Box3 a) = a
rewrapBox2 :: forall a. a > Box2 a
rewrapBox2 a = Box2 a
rewrapBox3 :: forall a. a > Box3 a
rewrapBox3 a = Box3 a
 The following code will compile
box2Example :: Box2 Int
box2Example = boxFunction (Box2 2) unwrapBox2 (_ + 1) rewrapBox2  Box2 3
box3Example :: Box3 Int
box3Example = boxFunction (Box3 3) unwrapBox3 (_ + 1) rewrapBox3  Box3 4
 Keep in mind that any type that follows a 'forall' keyword could be
 a higherkinded type
 Higher kinded types can also occur in data declarations:
data Type_with_HKT :: (Type > Type) > Type > Type
data Type_with_HKT hkt a = Type_With_HKT_Constructor (hkt a)
{
Thus we could have multiple values of this specific type, depending on what
type the `hkt` is:
Type_With_HKT Array Int
Type_With_HKT Box Int
}
data Type_with_2_HKT :: (Type > Type) > (Type > Type) > Type > Type
data Type_with_2_HKT hkt1 hkt2 a = Type_With_2_HKT_Constructor (hkt1 a) (hkt2 a)
 Type_with_2_HKT Array Array a
 Type_with_2_HKT Array Box a
 Type_with_2_HKT Box Array a
 Type_with_2_HKT Box Box a
01SingleParamter.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.SingleParameter where
import Prelude
 Basic Type classes
 a type class definition...
class TypeClassName parameterType where
functionName :: parameterType > ReturnType
 Or the parameter type could be the return type:
class TypeClassName_ parameterType where
fromString :: String > parameterType
 example
class ToInt a where
toInt :: a > Int
 ... and its implementation for SomeType
instance TypeClassName SomeType where
functionName type_ = ReturnType
 ## Type Class Instance Name Requirement

 Previously, naming type class instances was required.
 As of `v0.14.2`, this requirement has been dropped as the compiler
 generates the instance name instead now.

 Below is an example of a named type class instance. You
 may continue to see these while the ecosystem catches up.
 The name typically follows this naming convention:
 `classNameType1NameType2Name...TypeNName`.
{
instance typeClassNameSomeType :: TypeClassName SomeType where
functionName type_ = ReturnType
}
 The rest of this repo will use unnamed type class instances.
instance ToInt Boolean where
toInt true = 1
toInt false = 0
test :: Boolean
test = (toInt true) == 0
 Type classes can also specify values:
class TypeClassDefiningValue a where
value :: a
instance TypeClassDefiningValue Int where
value = 42
 Type classes usually only specify one function, but sometimes
 they specify multiple functions and/or values:
class ZeroAppender a where
append :: a > a > a
zeroValue :: a
instance ZeroAppender Int where
append = (+)
zeroValue = 0
warning_orphanInstance :: String
warning_orphanInstance = """
Be aware of what an 'orphan instance' is.
See the following link for more info:
https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/errors/OrphanInstance.md
"""
{
Note: Type class instances that use type aliases (i.e. the `type` keyword)
will fail to compile. The following code demonstrates this.
}
 Uncomment me and I'll become a compiler error
 type Age = Int
 instance TypeClassDefiningValue Age where
 value = 2
 Type classes are useful for constraining types, which will be covered next.
 necessary to make file compile
data ReturnType = ReturnType
data SomeType
02ConstrainingTypesUsingTypeclasses.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.Constraints where
import Prelude
 Adding a Type Class constraint to a type signature
 enables usage of the corresponding type class' function in that context:
 Syntax: Adding constraints on Function's type signature
function :: TypeClass1 Type1 => TypeClass2 Type2 => { and so on } Type1 > ReturnType
function arg = "return result"
 example
class ToInt a where
toInt :: a > Int
data List a
= Nil  end of list
 Cons a (List a)  a head element and the rest of the list (tail)
 'a' must have an 'ToInt' instance for this to compile
stringList_to_intList :: forall a. ToInt a => List a > List Int
stringList_to_intList Nil = Nil
stringList_to_intList (Cons head tail) = Cons (toInt head) (stringList_to_intList tail)
 Coupling this with the `forall` syntax:
function0 :: forall a b. TypeClass1 a => TypeClass2 b => a > b > String
function0 a b = "return result"
 Syntax: Adding constraints on type class instances
 This type class turns any type into a String so we can
 print it to the console when needed
class Show_ a where  this is the same signature for Show found in Prelude
show_ :: a > String
 Problem:
 Say we have a data type called "Box" that just contains a value:
data Boxx a = Boxx a
 If we want to implement the `Show` typeclass for it, we are limited to this:
instance Show (Boxx a) where
show (Boxx _) = "Box(<unknown value>)"
{
We would like to also show the 'a' value stored in Box. How do we do that?
By constraining our types in the Box to also have a Show instance: }
 Syntax
instance (TypeClass1 a) => {
(TypeClassN a) => } TypeClass1 (IntanceType a) where
function1 _ = "body"
data Box a = Box a
{ example: Read the following as:
"I can 'show' a Box only if the type stored in the Box can also be shown."
}
instance (Show a) => Show (Box a) where
show (Box a) = "Box(" <> show a <> ")"
 We have names for specific parts of the instance
instance (InstanceContext a) => A_TypeClass (InstanceHead a) where
function2 _ = "body"
 Implicit Usage: Since we know that the values below are of type "Box Int"
 We can use "show" without constraining any types.
test1 :: Boolean
test1 =
show (Box 4) == "Box(4)"
test2 :: Boolean
test2 =
show (Box (Box 5)) == "Box(Box(5))"
 Explicit Usage: The only thing we know about 'a' is that it can be shown.
showIt :: forall a. Show a => a > String
showIt showableThing = show showableThing
 All of these work because they all have a Show instance.
test3 :: String
test3 = showIt 4
test4 :: String
test4 = showIt (Box 5)
test5 :: String
test5 = showIt (Box (Box (Box 5)))
 necessary to make file compile
class TypeClass1 a where
function1 :: a > String
class InstanceContext :: Type > Constraint
class InstanceContext a
instance InstanceContext a
data InstanceHead :: Type > Type
data InstanceHead a = InstanceHead
class A_TypeClass a where
function2 :: a > String
instance TypeClass1 String where
function1 a = a
class TypeClass2 :: Type > Constraint
class TypeClass2 a
instance TypeClass2 String
type Type1 = String
type Type2 = String
type ReturnType = String
data IntanceType a = InstanceType a
03DictionariesHowTypeClassesWork.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.Dictionaries where
{
Previously, we saw that `show` could be used "implicitly" when we
knew what the type was and "explicitly" when we did not know what
the type was but knew it had a constraint
In both cases, the compiler automatically figures out how which instance's
implementation to use. But how does it do this? How do Type Classes work?
Dictionaries are what enable a function/value to magically appear in the
implementation of a function's body. The below code is a summary of
this article about type class 'dictionaries' written by Jonathan Fischoff:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200116160958/https://www.schoolofhaskell.com/user/jfischoff/instancesanddictionaries
I could not explain it clearer nor more concisely than Jonathan did.
}
 This code....
class ToBoolean a where
toBoolean :: a > Boolean
unUsed :: a > String
example :: forall a. ToBoolean a => a > Boolean
example value = toBoolean value
 ... gets desugared to this code
data ToBooleanDictionary a =
ToBooleanDictionary
{ toBoolean :: a > Boolean
, unUsed :: a > String
}
example' :: forall a. ToBooleanDictionary a > a > Boolean
example' (ToBooleanDictionary record) value = record.toBoolean value
01Partial.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.Special.Partial where
 This function is imported from the `purescriptpartial` library.
import Partial.Unsafe (unsafePartial)
 Normally, the compiler will require a function to always exhaustively
 pattern match on a given type. In other words, the function is "total."
data TwoValues = Value1  Value2
renderTwoValues :: TwoValues > String
renderTwoValues = case _ of
Value1 > "Value1"
Value2 > "Value2"
 In the above example, removing the line with `Value2 > "Value2"`
 from the source code would result in a compiler error as the function
 would no longer be "total" but "partial."
 However, there may be times when we wish to remove that compiler restriction.
 This can occur when we know that a nonexhaustive pattern match will
 not fail or when we wish to write more performant code that only works
 when the function has a valid argument.
 In such situations, we can add the `Partial` type class constraint
 to indicate that a function is no longer a "total" function but is now
 a "partial" function. In othe rwords, the pattern match is no longer
 exhaustive. If someone calls the function with an invalid invalid argument,
 it will produce a runtime error.
renderFirstValue :: Partial => TwoValues > String
renderFirstValue Value1 = "Value1"
 There is no `Value2` line here!
 When we wish to call partial functions, we must remove that `Partial`
 type class constraint by using the function `unsafePartial`.
 unsafePartial :: forall a. (Partial a => a) > a
callWithNoErrors_renderFirstValue :: String
callWithNoErrors_renderFirstValue = unsafePartial (renderFirstValue Value1)
 Uncomment this code and run it in the REPL. It will produce a runtime error.
callWithRuntimeErrors_renderFirstValue :: String
callWithRuntimeErrors_renderFirstValue =
unsafePartial (renderFirstValue Value2)
02Coercible.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.Special.Coercible where
import Prelude
import Prim.Coerce (class Coercible)
import Safe.Coerce (coerce)
 ## Linking to the paper for an (optional) detailed explanation
 In this file, we'll provide a beginnerfriendly summary of the paper
 that is linked below. For our purposes, we will only explain the bare
 minimum necessary to make the rest of this file make sense.
 If you wish to know more, read the paper below. However, be warned that
 those who are new to functional programming will likely not understand
 as much until they understand the `Functor` and/or `Foldable` type classes.
 These are covered in the `Hello World/Preludeish` folder in this project.
 Here's the paper: "Safe zerocost coercions for Haskell"
 https://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=compsci_pubs

 ## Summary of the Problem
 While we have stated earlier that newtypes are "zerocost abstractions"
 in that one does not incur a performance penalty for wrapping and unwrapping
 a newtyped value, there are some situations where this is not true.
 For example, let's say you had the following types:
  A comment that has multiple lines of text.
newtype MultiLineComment = MultiLineComment String
  A comment that has only 1 line of text.
newtype SingleLineComment = SingleLineComment String
 Let's say we wish to convert an `Array MultiLineComment` into
 `Array SingleLineComment` via the function,
 `exposeLines :: String > Array String`
 While newtypes are "zerocost abstractions," this particular algorithm
 would incur a heavy performance cost. Here's what we would have to do:
 1. Convert the `MultiLineComment` type into the `String` type
 by iterating through the entire `Array MultiLineComment` and unwrapping
 the `MultiLineComment` newtype wrapper.
 2. Use `exposeLines` to convert each multiline `String` into an `Array`
 of Strings by iterating through the resulting array.
 Each `String` in the resulting array would have only 1 line of content.
 3. Combine all `Arrays` of singleline `String`s into one Array.
 In other words, `combine :: Array (Array String) > Array String`
 4. Convert the `String` type into the `SingleLineComment` type
 by iterating through the final `Array` and wrapping each `String` in a
 `SingleLineComment` newtype.
 Steps 1 and 4 are necessary to satisfy type safety. At the typelevel,
 a `String` is not a `MultiLineComment`, nor a `SingleLineComment`.
 However, those three types do have the same runtime representation. Thus,
 Steps 1 and 4 are an unnecessary performance cost. Due to using newtypes
 in this situation, we iterate through the array two times more than needed.
 A `MultiLineComment` can be converted into a `String` safely and
 a `String` into a `SingleLineComment` safely. This type conversion
 process is safe and therefore unnecessary. The problem is that the developer
 does not have a way to provide the compiler with a proof of this safety.
 If the compiler had this proof, it could verify it and no longer complain
 when the developer converts the `Array MultiLineComment` into an
 `Array String` through a O(1) functio.
 The solution lays in two parts: the `Coercible` type class
 and "role annotations."
 ## Coercible
 This is the exact definition of the `Coercible` type class. However,
 we add the "_" suffix to distinguish this fake one from the real one.
class Coercible_ a b where
coerce_ :: a > b
 The `Coercible` type class says, "I can safely convert a value of type `a`
 into a value of type `b`." This solves our immediate problem, but it
 introduces a new problem. Since the main usage of `Coercible` is to
 remove the performance cost of newtypes in specific situations, how do
 make it impossible to write `Coercible` instances for invalid types?
 For example, a `DataBox` is a literal box at runtime because it uses the
 `data` keyword. It actually has to wrap and unwrap the underying value:
data DataBox a = DataBox a
 The `NewtypedBox` below is NOT a literal box at runtime because
 it doesn't actually wrap/unwrap the underlying value.
newtype NewtypedBox theValue = NewtypedBox theValue
 Thus, while we could have a type class instance for `MultiLineComment`,
 `String`, and `SingleLineComment`, should we have an instance
 between `DataBox` and `NewtypedBox`? The answer is no.

 However, how would we tell that to the compiler, so it could verify that
 for us? The answer is "role annotations."
 ## Role Annotations
 For another short explanation, see the answer to the post,
 "What is a role?" https://discourse.purescript.org/t/whatisarole/2109/2
 Role annotations tell the compiler what rules to follow when determining
 whether a Coercible instance between two types is valid. There are
 three possible values: representational, phantom, and nominal.
 Role annotation syntax follows this syntax pattern:
 `type role TheAnnotatedType oneRoleAnnotationForEachTypeParameter`
 ### Representational
 Representational says,
 "If `A` can be safely coerced to `B` and the runtime representation of
 `Box a` does NOT depend on `a`, then `Box a` can be safely
 coerced to `Box b`." (in contrast to `nominal`)
 Given a type like Box, which only has one type parameter, `a`...
data Box a = Box a
 ... we would write the following:
type role Box representational
 Here's another example that shows what to do when we have
 multiple type parameters
data BoxOfThreeValues a b c = BoxOfThreeValues a b c
type role BoxOfThreeValues representational representational representational
 ### Phantom
 Phantom says,
 "Two phantom types never have a runtime representation. Therefore,
 two phantom types can always be coerced to one another."
 Given a boxlike type that has a phantom type parameter, `phantomType`...
data PhantomBox :: Type > Type
data PhantomBox phantomType = PhantomBox
 ... we would write the following:
type role PhantomBox phantom
 Here's another example that mixes role annotations:
data BoxOfTwoWithPhantom :: Type > Type > Type > Type
data BoxOfTwoWithPhantom a phantom b = BoxOfTwoWithPhantom
type role BoxOfTwoWithPhantom representational phantom representational
 ### Nominal
 Nominal says,
 "If `A` can be safely coerced to `B` and the runtime representation of
 `Box a` DOES depend on `a`, then `Box a` can NOT be safely
 coerced to `Box b`." (in contrast to `representational`)
 When we don't have enough information (e.g. writing FFI), we default
 to the nominal role annotation. Below, we'll see why.
 For example, let's consider `HashMap key value`. Let's say we use a type class
 called `Hashable` to calculate the hash of a given key. Since newtypes
 can implement a different type class instance for the same runtime
 representation, wrapping that value in a newtype and then hashing it
 might not produce the same hash as the original. Thus, we would return
 a different value.
class Hashable key where
hash :: key > Int
instance hashableInt :: Hashable Int where
hash key = key
newtype SpecialInt = SpecialInt Int
derive instance eqSpecialInt :: Eq SpecialInt
instance hashableSpecialInt :: Hashable SpecialInt where
hash (SpecialInt key) = key * 31
data Map key value = Map key value
type role Map representational representational
data Maybe a = Nothing  Just a
derive instance eqMaybe :: (Eq a) => Eq (Maybe a)
lookup :: forall key1 key2 value
. Coercible key2 key1 => Hashable key1
=> Map key1 value > key2 > Maybe value
lookup (Map k value) key =
let
coercedKey :: key1
coercedKey = coerce key
in if hash k == hash coercedKey
then Just value
else Nothing
normalMap :: Map Int Int
normalMap = Map 4 28
 This will output `true`
testLookupNormal :: Boolean
testLookupNormal = (lookup normalMap 4) == (Just 4)
 This will output `false`
testLookupSpecial :: Boolean
testLookupSpecial = (lookup specialMap 4) == (Just 4)
where
 changes `Map 4 28` to `Map (SpecialInt 4) 28`
specialMap :: Map SpecialInt Int
specialMap = coerce normalMap
 To prevent this possibility from ever occurring, we indicate that
 a type parameter's role is 'nominal'. Rewriting our `Map` implementation
 so that `key` is nominal would prevent this from occurring. Since
 the `value` type parameter does not affect the runtime representation,
 it can be representational.
data SafeMap key value = SafeMap key value
type role SafeMap nominal representational
04TypeclassRelationships.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.RequiredTypeClasses where
import Prelude
{
Type classes can also have relationships with other type classes.
While the syntax looks hierarchial (i.e. parentchild relationships),
they aren't necessarily hierarchical. Rather, one should see them as
"conditional," which will be shown soon.
}
 Here's the syntax. It reads,
 "Type 'a' can have an instance of the type class,
 'ActualTypeClass.' However, it must also have an instance
 of the type class, 'RequiredTypeClass.'"
class RequiredTypeClass a <= ActualTypeClass a where
functionName :: a > ReturnType
 examples
 the required type class of 'PlusFive'
class ToInt a where
toInt :: a > Int
class ToInt a <= PlusFive a where
plusFive :: a > Int
 Writing an instance of ActualTypeClass does not require a constraint
 from RequiredTypeClass in its type signature as this is already known due
 to `ActualTypeClass`'s definition
instance ActualTypeClass TheType where
functionName _ = "body"
 example
instance ToInt Boolean where
toInt true = 1
toInt false = 0
instance PlusFive Boolean where
plusFive b = 5 + toInt b
 using it in code
test1 :: Boolean
test1 = (plusFive true) == 6
test2 :: Boolean
test2 = (plusFive false) == 5
 Now let's explain what we mean by "conditional."
instance ToInt Int where
 notice how the required type class, `ToInt`, is using functions
 from its extension type class, `PlusFive`.
toInt x = plusFive x
instance PlusFive Int where
plusFive b = 5 + b
 If a type implements instances for a number of type classes, its instances
 can use any of these type class' functions/values. Still,
 one of those instances will actually need to be independent from the
 others (i.e. it doesn't use any functions/values from other type classes).
 A type class can also combine multiple typeclasses. Sometimes,
 they will add additional functionality or laws. Other times,
 they simply combine two or more type classes into one.
class RequiredTypeClass1 a where
fn1 :: a > String
class RequiredTypeClass2 a where
fn2 :: a > String
 Example of combining and adding additional functionality:
class (RequiredTypeClass1 a, RequiredTypeClass2 a {, ... }) <= TheTypeClass a where
function :: a > a
 Example of only combining and not adding any additional functionality.
 Sometimes, this will add another law; other times, it only combines
 multiple type classes together:
class (RequiredTypeClass1 a, RequiredTypeClass2 a {, ... }) <= CombineOnly a
 necessary to make file compile
type ReturnType = String
data TheType = TheType
class RequiredTypeClass a where
fn :: a > String
instance RequiredTypeClass TheType where
fn _ = "body"
05TypeclasseswithNoDefinitions.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclasses.NoDefinition where
import Prelude
{
Some type classes do not declare any functions or values in their definition.
This usually occurs for one of two reasons:
1. They specify another law on top of the previous type class.
For example, the `ToString` type class converts any type's value into a String.
}
class ToString a where
toString :: a > String
 However, it doesn't specify how big or small that String should be.
 So, we can extend it with another type class that adds a law on how
 long the String can be before it's too long.
class (ToString a) <= ToString_50CharLimit a  no "where" keyword here!
 no function or value here!
 Assuming we've already written the `ToString` instance,
 to create an instance for the above type class, we'd write:
instance ToString_50CharLimit Int  no "where" keyword!
 This instance means the developer who wrote it asserts that
 the given type, Int, satisfies the given law.
{
A developer making a library that specifies such a type as this has
documented through the types what users of that library should expect:
calling 'toString a' will produce a String that is 50 chars or less.
Note:
Since the following are true...
 `toString` defines a function `toString`
 Int has an instance of `ToString`
 `ToString_50CharLimit` adds a law to `ToString`'s `toString` function
 Int has an instance of `ToString_50CharLimit`
... then a function that uses `show Int` will still output a String
that is 50 chars or less, even if the Int is not constrained to
the `ToString_50CharLimit` type class.
Since the latter imposes more restrictions on the former, the former must
also abide by those restrictions.
If one wanted to avoid this, they should define a new type class that
adds a function specifically for that:
class (ToString a) <= ToString_50CharLimt_2 a where
toString_limited a =  implementaton that uses 'show'
}
 2. Some type classes merely combine two or more type classes together:
data Box a = Box a
class Wrap a where
wrapIntoBox :: a > Box a
class Unwrap a where
unwrapFromBox :: Box a > a
class (Wrap a, Unwrap a) <= Boxable a
 To create an instance of `Boxable`, we need to define instances
 for Wrap, Unwrap, and Boxable, even if `Boxable` doesn't require
 you to implement any functions/values.
instance Wrap Int where
wrapIntoBox i = Box i
instance Unwrap Int where
unwrapFromBox (Box i) = i
instance Boxable Int
useBoxable :: forall a. (Boxable a) => a > a
useBoxable a = unwrapFromBox (wrapIntoBox a)
 Necessary to compile
instance ToString Int where
toString = show
06TypeClassKindSignatures.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.KindSignatures where
import Prelude
{
We saw previously that a data type can have a kind signature:
}
 Kind Signature: Type > Type > Type
data ImplicitKindSignature1 a b = ImplicitKindSignature2 a b String
data ExplicitKindSignature1 :: Type > Type > Type
data ExplicitKindSignature1 a b = ExplicitKindSignature1 a b String
 Kind Signature: Type > Type
type ImplicitKindSignature2 a = ImplicitKindSignature1 a Int
type ExplicitKindSignature2 :: Type > Type
type ExplicitKindSignature2 a = ExplicitKindSignature1 a Int
 We also saw that we can use type classes to constrain data types
showStuff :: forall a. Show a => a > String
showStuff a = "Showing 'a' produces " <> show a
{
It turns out that type classes can also have kind signatures.
However, rather than the rightmost value representing a "concrete" type,
these represent a "concrete" constraint. }
 Kind Signature: Type > Consraint
class ImplicitKindSignature a where
someValue1 :: a > String
class ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Constraint
class ExplicitKindSignature a where
someValue2 :: a > String
 Remember, `data` and `type`'s rightmost entity/kind is `Type` whereas
 type classes' rightmost entity/kind is `Constraint`.
07MultiParamter.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.MultiParameters where
import Prelude
 A type class can have more than just a single parameter as its type.
 Syntax
class MultiParameterTypeClass1 type1 type2 { typeN } where
functionName1 :: type1 > type2 > { typeN > } ReturnType
 Again, a parameter could be the return type
class MultiParameterTypeClass2 type1 type2 { typeN } where
functionName2 :: Int > type1 > { typeN > } type2
 example (not practical, but gets the idea across)
class ConvertFromAToB a b where
convert :: a > b
instance ConvertFromAToB Boolean String where
convert true = "true"
convert false = "false"
instance ConvertFromAToB Boolean Int where
convert true = 1
convert false = 0
toString :: forall a. ConvertFromAToB a String => a > String
toString a = convert a
test :: Boolean
test = (toString true) == "true"
 necessary to make file compile
type ReturnType = String
08FunctionalDependencies.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.MultiParameters.FunctionalDependencies where
{
Sometimes in multiparameter type classes, there is a relationship
between the types. In such cases, we call them 'functional dependencies' (FDs).
The next block summarizes these links:
 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20040224/functionaldependenciesinhaskell/20040427#20040427
 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20040224/functionaldependenciesinhaskell/20040343#20040343
 Section 2.1.2 shows an example where it needs FDs to work correctly
https://jgbm.github.io/pubs/morrisicfp2010instances.pdf
Syntax:
Read
class SomeClass type1 type2  type1 > type2
as
"Once you tell the type inferencer what the types on the lefthand side
of the arrow are (e.g. `type1`), then the type inferencer will stop
trying to infer what the types on the righthand side of the arrow are
(e.g. `type2`).
Rather, the compiler will look for an instance where
the lefthand side types are defined and use that instance
to determine what the righthand side types are. If the compiler finds
multiple instances where the lefthand side types are the same types
between instances but the righthand side types are different,
it will throw a compiler error.
}
class TypeClassWithFunctionalDependency type1 type2  type1 > type2 where
functionName1 :: type1 > type2
 Example
data Box a = Box a
class Unwrap a b  a > b where
unwrap :: a > b
 Here, the type of "a" (i.e. Box String) determines what "b" will be:
instance Unwrap (Box String) String where
unwrap (Box s) = s
{
If we defined another instance of `Unwrap` where
"a" is the same type (e.g. `Box String`) but `b` is different,
the compiler will throw an error:
instance Unwrap (Box String) Int where
unwrap (Box s) = length s }

 If multiple types determine what another type is, use this syntax:
class ManyTypesDetermineAnotherType a b c  a b { n } > c where
functionName2 :: a > b > c
class OneTypeDeterminesManyTypes a b c  a > b c where
functionName3 :: a > b > c
 We can also add an explicit kind signature here:
class OneInfersMany_ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Type > Type > Constraint
class OneInfersMany_ExplicitKindSignature a b c  a > b c where
functionName4 :: a > b > c

{
In some situations, there might be multiple ways to determine
a type. In such cases, we can use multiple FDs to tell the compiler
how to infer a given type in the type class.
The following two FDs can be read as,
"Make the type checker try to find an instance of ManyFDRelationships where
the `a` type and `b` type are known and then use
the instance to infer what the `c` type is.
However, if the type checker can't ultimately find such an instance,
then try to find an instance where the `c` type is known and
use that instance to infer what the `a` type and `b` type are."
}
class ManyFDRelationships a b c  a b > c, c > a b where
functionName5 :: a > b > c
 Same thing but with a kind signature.
class ManyFDRelationships_KindSignature :: Type > Type > Type > Constraint
class ManyFDRelationships_KindSignature a b c  a b > c, c > a b where
functionName6 :: a > b > c
{
In short, the type checker will use the FDs to determine how it should "unify"
the types together. If one FD fails, it'll go to the next one. If all of them
fail, it'll assume that there is no such type class instance.
}
{
In Haskell literature, functional dependencies can also be written as
"Type Families." To see how one can write the same concept in both
styles, see the below link:
https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC/Type_families#The_class_declaration_2
For advantages/disadvantages of both approaches, see these links:
https://wiki.haskell.org/Functional_dependencies_vs._type_families
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/TFvsFD
}
09InstanceChains.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.InstanceChains where
 ## Instance Chains: Syntax
import Prelude  imports the '+' operation below...
data Type1 = Type1
data Type2 = Type2
data Type3 = Type3
 A kind signature is necessary here because `theType`
 `ExampleClass1` doesn't define a function or value that refers to `theType`
 in that function/value's type signature.
class ExampleClass1 :: Type > Constraint
class ExampleClass1 theType
 Instance chains are a workaround to the problem of "overlapping instances."
 Here's how the syntax works:
instance ExampleClass1 Type1
else instance ExampleClass1 Type2
 ...
else instance ExampleClass1 Type3
 For readability, the `else` and `instance` keywords can appear on
 their own line or with a newline separating the keywords
class ExampleClass2 :: Type > Constraint
class ExampleClass2 theType
instance ExampleClass2 Type1
else
instance ExampleClass2 Type2
else
instance ExampleClass2 Type3
 ## Instance Chains: Use Cases
 Instance chains are useful because they allow you to define multiple
 instances for a given type class, but define the order in which the
 type class constraint is solved.
data SomeRandomType
= FirstValue
 SecondValue
class ProduceAnInt a where
mkInt :: a > Int
 When solving for `ProduceAnInt someType`, the compiler will
 solve for `someType` in the following order:
instance ProduceAnInt Int where
mkInt theInt = theInt
else
instance ProduceAnInt String where
mkInt _ = 13
else
instance ProduceAnInt SomeRandomType where
mkInt FirstValue = 89
mkInt SecondValue = 98
else
instance ProduceAnInt allOtherPossibleTypes where
mkInt _ = 42
data HasNoInstance = HasNoInstance
example :: Int
example =
(mkInt 1 ) + (mkInt "foo") + (mkInt FirstValue) + (mkInt HasNoInstance) {
which, once the constraints are solved, will be the same as computing
(1) + (13) + (89) + (42) }
 ## Instance Chains Gotchas: No Backtracking
 Given the following type class
class Stringify a where
stringify :: a > String
 One might write an instance chain like so with the following idea:
 1. First attempt to show the item using that type class instance
 2. Otherwise, indicate that it cannot be shown.
instance (Show allPossibleTypes) => Stringify allPossibleTypes where
stringify a = show a
else
instance Stringify a where
stringify _ = "The value could not be converted into a String."
 Then, one might attempt to use that code like so:
data Foo = Foo
 failsToCompile :: String
 failsToCompile = stringify "a normal string" <> stringify Foo
{
Uncommenting that will produce the following compiler error:
No type class instance was found for
Data.Show.Show Foo
while applying a function stringify
of type Stringify t0 => t0 > String
to argument Foo
while checking that expression stringify Foo
has type String
in value declaration failsToCompile
where t0 is an unknown type
}
 Why does this occur? Because the `doMeFirst` instance will match on
 every type since the parameter passed to Stringify is literally
 `allPossibleTypes`. It will then attempt to find the `Show` instance
 for `allPossibleTypes`. In the case of `Foo`, which does not
 have such an instance, the compiler does not "backtrack" and
 attempt to use the `defaultToMeOtherwise` instance. Rather, it immediately
 fails with the above error.
 Backtracking is a feature that has not yet been implemented in the
 compiler.
11KeywordNewtype.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Newtype where
import Prelude
{
The last data type keyword to explain here is `newtype`.
It is a compiletimeonly type that only takes one type as its argument.
These are useful primarily for two reasons
 They add a more meaningful name to another type (like type aliases)
but act as a completely different type (unlike type aliases).
 They are compiletimeonly types, so one does not incur runtime overhead
(like type aliases).
 They need to be constructed/deconstructed in code (unlike type aliases).
When used with Phantom Types (see the `Design Patterns` folder), they can
restrict how developers can use the type in very useful ways.
 They enable one to define multiple type class instances for the same type.
}
 Syntax:
newtype NewTypeName = OnlyAllowsOneConstructor WhichOnlyTakesOneArgument_TheWrappedType
newtype NamedStringType = NamedStringType String
 Pattern matching on a type defined via the `newtype` keyword works
 just like a type defined via the `data` keyword.
 You can expose the value wrapped by the newtype constructor
 using a pattern match and/or `case _ of` syntax
patternMatching :: String
patternMatching =
unwrap_a_newtype_via_pattern_match
(wrap_a_value_via_constructor
(unwrap_a_newtype_via_pattern_match
(NamedStringType "example")
)
)
where
wrap_a_value_via_constructor :: String > NamedStringType
wrap_a_value_via_constructor str = NamedStringType str
unwrap_a_newtype_via_pattern_match :: NamedStringType > String
unwrap_a_newtype_via_pattern_match (NamedStringType str) = str
unwrap_a_newtype_via_case_of_syntax :: NamedStringType > String
unwrap_a_newtype_via_case_of_syntax = case _ of
NamedStringType str > str
 Given the following code:
data Box a = Box a
class Show_ a where
show_ :: a > String
instance (Show a) => Show (Box a) where
show (Box a) = "Box(" <> show a <> ")"
 What if we wanted to use a different type class instance for `Box` in some
 situations, but not want to redefine `Box` as a new type with a different
 name? We would do this:
newtype Box2 a = Box2 (Box a)
 Since `Box2` is a different type than `Box`, we can define a type class
 instance on it. This is a way to provide an alternative `Show` instance
 on the underlying `Box` type.
instance (Show a) => Show (Box2 (Box a)) where
show (Box2 (Box a)) = "Box with value of [" <> show a <> "] inside of it."
 Or, to add more context to a type, we can use a newtype to ensure we
  don't use a `String` where we need to use a `Name`.
  don't use an `Int` where we need to use an `Age`.
newtype Name = Name String
newtype Age = Age Int
newtype Relationships = Relationships (List People)
 Assuming all three above have a Show instance:

 printPerson :: Name > Age > Relationships > String
 printPerson (Name n) (Age i) (Relationships l) =
 "Name: " <> n <> ", Age: " <> show i <> ", Relationships: " <> show l
 Similar to `data` and `type`, newtypes can also have a kind signature:
 Implicit kind signature: Type > Type
newtype SomeValue a = SomeValue (Box a)
newtype SomeValue_ExplicitKindSignature :: Type > Type
newtype SomeValue_ExplicitKindSignature a = SomeValueExplicit (Box a)
 needed to compile
type WhichOnlyTakesOneArgument_TheWrappedType = String
data List :: Type > Type
data List a
data People
21DerivingCommonTypeclassInstancesforCustomTypes.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Deriving.Typeclass where
import Prelude
 Given the following type classes, Eq and Ord
  Determines whether two values of the same type are equal
class Eq_ a where
eq_ :: a > a > Boolean
data Ordering_ = LT_  GT_  EQ_
  Determines whether left is less than, greater than, or equal to right
class Ord_ a where
compare_ :: a > a > Ordering_
 Original credit: @paf31
 Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/3.markdown
 Changes made: use metalanguage to explain type class derivation syntax

 Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US
data Type1
= First Int
 Second String
 To create instances of `Eq` and `Ord` for `Type` we'd usually write it by hand:
instance Eq Type1 where
eq (First a) (First b) = a == b
eq (Second a) (Second b) = a == b
eq _ _ = false
instance Ord Type1 where
compare (First a) (First b) = compare a b
compare (First _) _ = LT
compare (Second a) (Second b) = compare a b
compare (Second _) _ = GT
 Imagine if we added a Third constructor to Type. We'd need to account for
 that type as well now.
 This gets tedious and, fortunately, the compiler can figure out what these
 should be based on the 'shape' of the types. To reduce the boilerplate,
 we can just add `derive` in front of the instance and not implement
 the function:
data Type2
= First2 Int
 Second2 String
derive instance Eq Type2
derive instance Ord Type2
test2 :: Boolean
test2 =
(compare (First2 1) (Second2 "Foo")) == LT
 Ordering between "First" and "Second" depend on their sequence in the ADT.
data Type3
= Second3 String
 First3 Int
derive instance Eq Type3
derive instance Ord Type3
test3 :: Boolean
test3 =
(compare (First3 1) (Second3 "Foo")) == GT
 In other cases (like higherkinded types),
 we can use type class constraints to derive them:
data Box a = Box a
derive instance Eq a => Eq (Box a)
derive instance Ord a => Ord (Box a)
{
Note: this works for only two reasons:
First, because Int and String
both have an Eq and Ord instance. If one of these did not,
then the compiler would not know how to create them.
Second, because we can only derive typeclasses for a few
type classes:
 Data.Eq (from `purescriptprelude`)
 Data.Ord (from `purescriptprelude`)
 Data.Functor (from `purescriptprelude`)
(These type classes can also be derived but they use a different syntax):
 Data.Newtype (from `purescriptnewtype`)
 Data.Generic.Rep (from `purescriptgenericsrep`)
}
22DerivingTypeclassInstancesforNewtypedTypes.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Deriving.Newtype where
import Prelude
 needed for deriving Newtype example
import Data.Newtype (class Newtype, over)
 License applies to a portion of this document > Start
 Original credit: @paf31
 Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/4.markdown
 Changes made: use metalanguage to explain newtype typeclass derivation syntax

 Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US
 Newtypes are used to wrap existing types with more information around them
newtype EmailAddress1 = EmailAddress1 String
 However, defining type class instances for them
 can get tedious:
instance Eq EmailAddress1 where
eq (EmailAddress1 s1) (EmailAddress1 s2) = s1 == s2
 same for Ord type class
 same for other newtypes
newtype Phone = Phone String
newtype FirstName = FirstName String
 etc...
 This is boilerplate since we unpack the instance and delegate the function
 to the wrapped type's implementation. It's also inefficient in terms of
 evaluation. Purescript gives us a way to derive, for newtypes, any instance
 the boxed type implements, using the following syntax.
 We use 'derive newtype' in front of the instance:
newtype EmailAddress2 = EmailAddress2 String
derive newtype instance Eq EmailAddress2
derive newtype instance Eq Phone
derive newtype instance Eq FirstName
 < End
 License applies to a portion of this document > Start
 Original credit: @paf31
 Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/5.markdown
 Changes made: use metalanguage to explain Newtype typeclass derivation syntax

 Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US
 Another useful class we can derive from is found in the `newtype` library: purescriptnewtype
class Newtype_ new old  new > old
newtype EmailAddress3 = EmailAddress3 String
 no need to indicate what "_" is since the compiler can figure it out
derive instance Newtype EmailAddress3 _
 Data.Newtype provides other useful functions that lets us avoid manually
 wrapping and unwrapping. For example:
upperEmail :: EmailAddress3 > EmailAddress3
upperEmail = over EmailAddress3 prefixWithText
 To see the full list, look at the package's docs:
 https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescriptnewtype/3.0.0/docs/Data.Newtype
 < End
 needed to compile
  prefixes a given string with 'text'
prefixWithText :: String > String
prefixWithText str = "text" <> str
41TypeEqualityNotPropagate.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Typeclass.Gotchas.TypeEqualityNotPropagate where
import Unsafe.Coerce (unsafeCoerce)
 ## Gotcha Number 1: Type Equality isn't yet included in Type Class Constraints
 ### Example of the Problem
 Given a type class like so...
class TwoTypesButTheyAreTheSameThing :: Type > Type > Constraint
class TwoTypesButTheyAreTheSameThing a b  a > b, b > a
 and an instance like so...
instance TwoTypesButTheyAreTheSameThing Int Int
 ... the below code will fail to compile
{
foo :: forall int
. TwoTypesButTheyAreTheSameThing Int int
=> int
foo = 8
Compiler Error:
Could not match type
Int
with type
int0
while checking that type Int
is at least as general as type int0
while checking that expression 8
has type int0
in value declaration foo
where sameAsInt0 is a rigid type variable
bound at (line 9, column 7  line 9, column 8)
}
 Why? Because the compiler does not also infer that `int` must be
 the type, `Int`, when solving the type class constraint, even if the
 instance and type class' functional dependencies indicate otherwise.
 ### Current Workaround
class A_Determines_B :: Type > Type > Constraint
class A_Determines_B a b  a > b
instance A_Determines_B Int String
 The below "foreign import" syntax will be covered more in the FFI folder
foreign import data Computed :: Type > Type
fromComputed :: forall a b. A_Determines_B a b => Computed a > b
fromComputed = unsafeCoerce
toComputed :: forall a b. A_Determines_B a b => b > Computed a
toComputed = unsafeCoerce
 As hdgarood explained it,
 "This is safe because you have to tell the compiler that you have an
 `A_Determines_B a b` instance before it will coerce between the `a` and `b`.
 But yes it’s expected that constraints with fundeps don’t propagate
 type equalities. That’s not yet implemented."
Designing Type Classes
Why does PureScript disallow Orphan Instances while other languages (e.g. Haskell) allow them? Scala has type classes, but they don't function like PureScript's type classes.
If you are curious to learn more, read Type classes, class coherence and dependent types, which provides insight into the design and implementations of the 'type class' concept as well as implementations' tradeoffs.
Global Typeclasses
Type Class Instances: Global vs Local
To state that a given type (e.g. Box
) can satisfy a type class' requirements, one writes a "type class instance". This instance actually defines how a given type (e.g. Box
) implements that type class (e.g. Functor
).
A language can implement type classes in two different ways:
 Global: one type can only have one instance for any given type class.
 Local: one type can have multiple instances for any given type class.
PureScript uses global type class instances whereas languages like Scala use local type class instances. So, what's the difference?
Benefits of Global Instances
Let's say I use functions that require the underlying data type to satisfy the Functor
type class' requirements. Sometimes, that underlying data type is Array
. Sometimes, it's Box
. Sometimes, it's Maybe
.
Global instances mean that a given data type (e.g. Box
) can only have one instance for a given type class (e.g. Functor
). Thus, every time and everywhere that I use Functor
in my code where the underlying type is Box
, the same BoxFunctor instance is always used. This makes it easy for the compiler to figure out which instance to use, and the programmer does not have to think deeply about which instance will be used.
Local instances mean that a given data type (e.g. Box
) can have an infinite number of instances for a given type class (e.g. Functor
). Thus, any time I use Functor
in my code and the underlying type is Box
, any one of its instances could be used. This makes it harder for the compiler to figure out which instance to use. Ultimately, the compiler chooses an appropriate instance based on which instance is "closest" in the given scope. However, the programmer has to think more deeply about how to properly configure/arrange their code, so that the instance they want the compiler to choose is actually chosen and used.
Costs of Global Instances: Orphan Instances
Given this tradeoff, it may seem strange that global instances aren't used everywhere. If it's easier for the compiler and programmer, why use local instance?
The major pain point of global instances is "orphan instances."
For the below examples, let's say there is a type class, MyTypeClass
, that is defined in Data.MyTypeClass
. Let's say there is a data type, Box
, that is defined in Data.Box
. Let's say there is a third module, Data.Orphan
, that has various other functions and values.
Due to how global instances work, an instance for a type class must be defined in one of two ways. There are two places where we could declare and implement the Box
MyTypeClass
instance:
 either in
Data.MyTypeClass
module, which imports theBox
module and its type  or in the
Data.Box
module, which imports theData.MyTypeClass
module and its class.
If an instance is defined anywhere else (e.g. defined in Data.Orphan
), it's called an "orphan instance." For example, Bob writes a library that exposes a type class (e.g. MyTypeClass
). Sally, writes a data type that exposes a type (e.g. Box
). The Box
MyTypeClass
instance can be defined in either Bob's library or Sally's library. You are a thirdparty who wishes the Box
MyTypeClass
instance was implemented differently than what either Bob or Sally implemented it as. However, since your module (e.g. Data.Orphan
) is not one of those two modules, you cannot redefine the instance.
The only workaround to this situation is to define a newtype over Box
that provides a different Box
MyTypeClass
instance. While this seems simple to do, newtype wrapping and unwrapping can start to feel like "bloat" that gets in the way of other things.
Why Orphan Instances Are Painful
An Example
Let's say you have a library called purescriptunorderedcollections
that defines a data type called HashMap
. Let's say you have another library called purescriptargonautcodecs
that defines two type classes called EncodeJson
and DecodeJson
. Where do you define HashMap
's instances for those two type classes?
If in the datatype library (where the HashMap
data type is declared), then that library will need to depend on the codec library.
If in the codec library (where the EncodeJson/DecodeJson
type classes are declared), then it will need to depend on the datatype library.
Either way, someone will get annoyed by something:
 once the instance is defined in either library, everyone in the ecosystem is now stuck using that instance's definition. If they thought it should have been defined differently, they often have to write boilerplatey code via
newtype
s to be able to define their own instances.
Languages with local instances can shrug their shoulders as they have more control as to which instance gets chosen.
The Default
Type Class
Type classes provide a "convenience" of sorts: rather than forcing the developer to pass in an implementation of the function, (a > Boolean)
, the compiler can infer what that function's implementation is as long as it can infer what the type of a
is.
Thus, new learners tend to reach the following conclusion. Let's say you are writing a library where you want to make it easier for the developer to use this library. At some point in the library, you need them to provide a default value. "Gee!" you think, "Why not use a type class called Default
? The compiler can infer which instance to use and the developer's life will be that much easier!" While your intentions are good, that's a terrible idea as it will lead to "instance wars" due to orphan instances.
Although it can suffer from similar problems, a better choice is Monoid
. See Gabriel Gonzalez' post on Defaults.
Similarly, read Don't Use Type Classes to Define Default Values.
Summary of Global vs Local Type Class Instances' Tradeoffs
Type  Pros  Cons 

Global 
 Orphan Instances or writing boilerplatey newtyp code to get around them 
Local 
 Best instance for the problem can be used without boilerplate 
Scala uses local instances. Haskell uses global instances and orphan instances are disallowed by default; however, I believe Haskell has an "escape hatch" that allows orphan instances to exist.
PureScript uses global instances, and orphan instances are strictly disallowed. Unlike Haskell, there are no "escape hatches." For more context, see Harry's comment in 'Disallow Orphan Instances' (purescript/purescript#1247).
Scrap Your Type Classes (SYTC)
At the end of the day, mainstream usage of type classes provide a lot of convenience to the developer. Rather than defining a function that takes many arguments, it only takes a few arguments that highlight what you want to do.
As a result, some developers who encounter a problem will immediately decide to use type classes as their solution rather than some other language feature that is more appropriate (e.g. regular functions). For some problems, it is better to use regular functions rather than type classes. Regular functions might be less convenient than type classes, but they can be easier to use in some cases and more performant in others.
To understand the tradeoff, you must
 understand that type class constraints are replaced with arguments called 'type class dictionaries'
 realize that the possibly "larger" type class dictionary object argument could be replaced with a "smaller" single function
For more context, see Scrap Your Type Classes
Other Usages of Type Classes
Some type classes are purposefully designed to be lawless because they are used for other situations. Here are some examples:
 Typelevel documentation
Partial
 represents a partial function: a function that does not always return a value for every input, but which will throw a runtime error on some inputs (covered inDesign Patterns/Partial Functions
)
 Custom compiler warnings/errors
Warn
/Fail
 causes the compiler to emit a custom warning or a compiler error when the associated function/value is used in the code base (covered inHello World/Debugging/Custom Type Errors
)
 Typelevel functions
Symbol.Append
 represents a typelevel function (covered inSyntax/TypeLevel Programming Syntax
andHello World/TypeLevel Programming
).
 Function/Value Name Overloading (see next section's explanation and debate about this idea)
Debate: Must Type Classes Always Be Lawful?
While I already linked to the following link in the 'default type class' issue explained above, the link also covers another topic: why type classes should be lawful. Focusing on that aspect, the following is a (somewhat biased) summary of Don't Use Type Classes to Define Default Values
Those that say "yes" likely value the benefit of laws. Laws guarantee relationships between functions and values. In short, it's easier to understand and reason about code that uses lots of generic types (e.g. forall a. a > String
) if one knows that functions that operate on values of the type, a
, or values that provide an a
value adhere to certain laws.
Those that say "no" likely value the benefit of overloading a function name with different implementations. For example, what if one wanted to provide a default value of some type? Reusing the function name "default" is pretty easy to understand. However, what laws does it abide by? Without a deeper context, it's hard, if not impossible, to say.
The counterargument from those that say "laws must be required" is: "one usually hasn't thought through their design that deeply yet." As an example, is Default Int
just a different name for Monoid
's mempty
, (i.e. 0
in addition (1 + 0 == 1
and 0 + 1 == 1
)? Is their approach to their design actually flawed because there is a "better" way and they just haven't realized it yet?
Are there cases where the function name would "read well" in two contexts but mean two different things? For example, Context A's use of default
might return 0
whereas Context B's use of default
might return 12
.
Thus, it seems that lawless type classes imply a domainspecific meaning in each context whereas lawful type classes imply a domainindependent meaning.
The reader is left with these question:
 Are there ever times where gaining the convenience of overloaded function names are worth the loss of lawfulreasoning?
 Does this change when adds in other factors?
 Time (e.g. cost is great shortterm but sucks longterm; cost stays the same through short and longterm)
 Business cost (e.g. cost to refactor nonlawful type classes vs cost of only making lawful type classes when overloaded functions names would have made development easier / accomplished the goal at the end of the day)
 Hobby (e.g. I'm just making a fun project that no one will ever use)
 Does this change when adds in other factors?
 If so, when should it be done? How would one know that it was the wrong approach and when would that likely happen?
 What problems did developer X face when sticking to Side A instead of Side B?
21Documentation.purs
  This is a singleline documentation.
  This
  is
  a
  multiline
  documentation block, not a comment.
  Because it appears above the module declaration below,
  it will be combined with the next few documentation blocks.
  One can use markdown inside of documentation:
 
  Look an unordered list:
   item 1
   item 2
 
  An ordered list:
  1. Item
  2. Item
  3. Item
 
  Unfortunately, markdown tables don't work...:
 
   One  Two  Three 
        
   a  b  c 
 
  # Headers level 1 work
 
  ## Headers level 2 work
 
  ### Headers level 3 work
 
  #### Headers level 4 work
 
  ##### Headers level 5 work
 
  ###### Headers level 6 work
 
  Some code:
  ```purescript
  f :: Int
  f = 4
  ```
  Documentation on a given module
module Syntax.Basic.Documentation where
  Documentation on a value
value :: Int
value = 4
  Documentation on a function
function :: Int > String
function _ = "easy"
  Documentation on a given data type
data SomeData
  Documentation on a particular data constructor
= SomeData
  Documentation on a given type alias
type MyType = String
  Documentation on a given newtype
newtype SmallInt = SmallInt Int
  Documentation on a given type class
class MyClass a b  a > b where
  Documentation for a particular function/value
  defined in a type class
myFunction :: a > b
  Documentation for a particular instance of a type class
instance MyClass String Int where
myFunction _ = 4
22UnicodeSyntaxSupport.purs
module Syntax.Basic.Unicode where
 Unicode sytax is supported
 Original credit: @paf31
 Link: https://github.com/paf31/24daysofpurescript2016/blob/master/2.markdown
 Changes made:
  copied type signature that use unicode syntax except for union/intersect
  copied links showing unicode syntax in real libraries
  added library showing emoji operators in real library
  added forall / ∀ comparison

 Licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/3.0/deed.en_US
data ℕ = Zero  Succ ℕ
add :: ℕ > ℕ > ℕ
add _ _ = Zero
ε :: Number
ε = 0.001
{
Using unicode syntax, instead of using a combination of characters,
one could use a single character to save space:
 Instead of...  >  <  =>  <=  ::  forall 
+++++++
 you can use...  →  ←  ⇒  ⇐  ∷  ∀ 
Using Unicode syntax can make things unreadable, but sometimes it makes things more readable:
 https://github.com/paf31/purescriptisomorphisms/blob/f1a9e59f831cc3150dd9bc7aa66b2661df250ebe/src/Data/Iso.purs#L22
 https://github.com/paf31/purescriptpairing/blob/837638470c58df3971fe2e56395d65f391c9ba00/src/Data/Functor/Pairing.purs#L43
Yes, this does enable emoiji operators. See this library for an example of
why you might and might not want to use that syntax:
 https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescriptprelewd/0.1.0
}
Understanding Type Inference
The below video explains how type inference works. It can be very helpful to understand what is going on behind the scenes when you get compiler errors: How GHC's Type Inference Engine Works
Foreign Function Interface (FFI) Syntax
Alternate Backends
Besides compiling to Javascript, Purescript can also compile to other languages. See this link for a full list (may be outdated)
Syntax
This folder provides examples of FFI for simple cases regarding the JavaScript backend. However, see Wrapping JavaScript for PureScript for more detailed examples as to how to do FFI properly.
You should also look at the Purescript and Javascript source code for Effect.Uncurried:
Lastly, there may be some cases where you need to write FFI with Effect
, but Effect
isn't the best type to use. In such cases, take a look at Aff's FFI:
Using PureScript code within a JavaScript context
Imagine you defined a function in PureScript like gcd2
below that you wish to use in JavaScript code. What's a good practice to follow when calling that PureScript code from JavaScript?
$ cat src/GCD.purs
module GCD where
import Prelude
gcd2 :: Int > Int > Int
gcd2 n m  n == 0 = m
gcd2 n m  m == 0 = n
gcd2 n m  n > m = gcd (n  m) m
gcd2 n m = gcd (m  n) n
A good practice is to define a separate Interop
module that looks like this:
module GCD.Interop where
import Prelude
import GCD as GCD
import Data.Function.Uncurried (mkFn2)
gcd2 :: Fn2 Int Int Int
gcd2 = mkFn2 GCD.gcd2
The above code will get compiled to ./output/GCD.Interop/index.js
. So, in a JavaScript file, I would do the following:
import { gcd2 } from "./output/GCD.Interop/index.js";
gcd2(4, 5);
Defining an Interop
module comes with two benefits that occur if gcd2
needs to do some breaking change (e.g. changing its number/order/type of args and return value):
 If we have an
Interop
module, JavaScript consumers of the module don't have to account for breakage. Rather, theInterop
version can change how this breakage propagates to the JavaScript consumer. In many cases, such breakage can be hidden entirely.  If we have an
Interop
module, theInterop
module will produce a compiler error. This will remind us of every place where theInterop
code is used by JavaScript and force us to verify that the JavaScript usage of the PureScript code is still correct.
01SameFileName.js
export const basicValue = 4.0;
export function basicCurriedFunction(number) {
return number * 4.0;
}
export function basicEffect() {
return 4.0;
}
export function threeArgCurriedFunction(arg1) {
return function(arg2) {
return function(arg3) {
// body of function
return arg1 * arg2 * arg3;
};
};
}
export function curriedFunctionProducingEffect(string) {
return function() {
return string;
};
}
export function basicUncurriedFunction(fn) {
return function(arg1) {
return function(arg2) {
return fn(arg1)(arg2)();
};
};
}
var twoArgFunction = function(arg1, arg2) {
console.log(arg1 + " " + arg2);
};
export {twoArgFunction as twoArgCurriedFunctionImpl};
01SameFileName.purs
module Syntax.FFI.Simple where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Uncurried (EffectFn2, runEffectFn2)
foreign import data DataType :: Type
foreign import data HigherKindedType :: Type > Type
foreign import basicValue :: Number
foreign import basicEffect :: Effect Number
foreign import basicCurriedFunction :: Number > Number
foreign import threeArgCurriedFunction :: Number > Number > Number > Number
foreign import curriedFunctionProducingEffect :: String > Effect String
foreign import basicUncurriedFunction :: EffectFn2 Number Number Number
foreign import twoArgCurriedFunctionImpl :: EffectFn2 String String Unit
twoArgFunction :: String > String > Effect Unit
twoArgFunction = runEffectFn2 twoArgCurriedFunctionImpl
02OtherBindings.js
// We'll use this binding in the next example
export function otherBindingFunction(arg) {
console.log(`What is arg? It's ${arg}`);
return 1;
}
03BindingsTip.js
/*
When you are writing bindings to JavaScript,
the compiler will not pick up changes you make
to your FFI files unless it rebuilds the entire codebase.
So, it can be helpful to define your actual bindings
in one file and import and reexport them in this file
so that they are usable in PureScript.
Then, you can compile your code once and as long
as the arg number and types in PS don't change,
you can iterate on the FFI implementation
without having to recompile your code.
*/
export { otherBindings } from "../bindings/index.js";
03BindingsTip.purs
module Syntax.FFI.BindingsTip where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Uncurried (EffectFn2, runEffectFn2)
foreign import otherBindings :: forall a. a > Int
TypeLevel Programming Syntax
Read the files in order. It may take a few readthroughs for it to make sense as to why some things are needed but it will make sense eventually.
Note: there is an annoyance that can occur if you play around with the code: due to using the same names for some things, the IDE may try to import these names from other modules. If it does so, it may result it some definition being declared twice in the same file and produce a compiler error. If you experience such a problem, check the top of the file and delete any imports there.
Other Learning Sources
Consider purchasing Thinking with Types, a book that claims to be "the comprehensive manual for typelevel programming". Abhinav Sarkar also made his notes public
An Overview of Terms and Concepts
Comparison
In programming, there are usually two terms we use to describe "when" a problem/bug/error can occur:
 Compiletime: Turns source code into machine code. Compiler errors occur due to types not aligning.
 Runtime: Executes machine code. Runtime errors occur due to values of types not working as expected/verified by the compiler (e.g. you expected a
String
at runtime but gotnull
).
Definition
Term  Definition  "Runtime" 

ValueLevel Programming  Writing source code that gets executed during runtime  Node / Browser 
TypeLevel Programming  Writing source code that gets executed during compiletime  Type Checker / Type Class Constraint Solver^ 
^ First heard of this from @natefaubion in the PureScript chatroom.
What Are Types and Functions?
Types Reexamined
When we define a type like so...
data MyType
= Value1
 Value2
... we are saying there is a set or domain called MyType
that has two members, Value1
and Value2
.
Thus, when we write...
value1 :: MyType
value1 = Value1
... we could also write it with more type information:
value1 :: MyType
value1 = (Value1 :: MyType)
The syntax (Value1 :: MyType)
means Value1
is a value of the MyType
type (or Value1
is a member of the MyType
set/domain)
Functions Reexamined
Functions can be either pure or impure. Pure functions have 3 properties, but the third (marked with *
) is expanded to show its full weight:
Pure  Pure Example  Impure  Impure Example  

Given an input, will it always return some output?  Always (Total Functions)  n + m  Sometimes (Partial Functions)  4 / 0 == undefined 
Given the same input, will it always return the same output?  Always (Deterministic Functions)  1 + 1 always equals 2  Sometimes (NonDeterministic Functions)  random.nextInt() 
*Does it interact with the real world?  Never  Sometimes  file.getText()  
*Does it acces or modify program state  Never  newList = oldList.removeElemAt(0) Original list is copied but never modified  Sometimes  x++ variable x is incremented by one. 
*Does it throw exceptions?  Never  Sometimes  function (e) { throw Exception("error") } 
Pure functions can better be explained as mapping some input to some output. The simplest example is pattern matching:
data Fruit = Apple  Orange
stringify :: Fruit > String
stringify Apple = "Apple"
stringify Orange = "Orange"
The function, stringify
, doesn't "do" anything: it doesn't modify its arguments, nor does it really "use" its arguments in some manner. Rather, it merely defines what to output when given some input.
In this way, functions merely specify how to map values of some type (e.g. Fruit) to values of another type (e.g. String). This idea is the heart of Category Theory. Thus, types and functions go handinhand.
Kinds Redefined
Previously, we said:
Kinds = "How many more types do I need defined before I have a 'concrete' type?"
And using the table from earlier...
Example  Kind  Meaning 

String  Type  Concrete value 
Int  Type  Concrete value 
Box a  Type > Type  HigherKinded Type (by 1) One type needs to be defined before the type can be instantiated 
(a > b) Function a b  Type > Type > Type  HigherKinded Type (by 2) Two types need to be defined before the type can be instantiated 
This definition sufficed when we were learning only valuelevel programming. In reality, it's more like this:
Name  Meaning 

Kind  A "Type" for typelevel programming 
Type  The "kind" (i.e. typelevel type) that indicates a valuelevel type for valuelevel programming 
Sometimes, pictures say a lot more than words:
We can now modify the definition to account for this new understanding:
Kinds = "How many more typelevel types do I need defined before I have a 'concrete' typelevel type? Also, the kind,
Type
, is a typelevel type whose 'values'/'members' are valuelevel types.
Summary of Inferred Kinds
Returning to a table we showed previously, we'll add the header that we removed (all caps) when we first displayed the table and include Record
/Row
.
TYPELEVEL EXPRESSION  Inferred kind 

Unit  Type 
Array Boolean  Type 
Array  Type > Type 
Either Int String  Type 
Either Int  Type > Type 
Either  Type > Type > Type 
Record (foo :: Int)  Type 
Record  Row Type > Type 
(foo :: Int)  Row Type 
...  ... 
TypeLevel Programming Flow
TypeLevel programming has 23 stages:
 Creation
 Define a typelevel value by declaring a literal one
 Reification  convert a valuelevel (i.e. runtime value) value into a typelevel value via a
Proxy
type
 (optional) Modify that value during compiletime
 Terminal
 Constrain types, so that an impossible state/code fails with a compiler error
 Reflection  convert a typelevel value stored in the
Proxy
type into a valuelevel value
Related Papers
01DefiningCustomKinds.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.DefiningCustomKinds where

 To change the valuelevel type into a typelevel type:
data Value_Level_Type
= Value_Level_Value1
 Value_Level_Value2

 We first define a data type that does not have any data constructors.
 This indicates that `Type_Level_Type` is a kind we created.
data Type_Level_Type
 Then, we use FFIlike syntax to declare the typelevel values that kind
 has. We do not declare a right hand side (RHS) since it has no values
  RHS 
 data SomeType = Value1  Value2
 Rather, we indicate that the type is a member of that kind using
 the following syntax:
foreign import data Type_Level_Value1 :: Type_Level_Type
foreign import data Type_Level_Value2 :: Type_Level_Type
 Note: there is no corresponding javascript file for this one
 despite the "foreign import" syntax!

 Using a Booleanlike valuelevel type as an example...
data YesNo = Yes  No
data YesNoKind
foreign import data YesK :: YesNoKind
foreign import data NoK :: YesNoKind

02KindSignatures.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.KindSignatures where
 We showed previously that `data`, `type`, `newtype`, and `class` declarations
 can all have explicit kind signatures. In previous situations,
 kind signatures only used the kind, `Type`. Now that we know how to
 define our own custom kind, let's use it below.
data A_Kind_I_Created
foreign import data Only_Value_For_My_Kind :: A_Kind_I_Created
data DataExample :: A_Kind_I_Created > Type
data DataExample a_kind_I_created_type_level_value = DataExample
 This will succesfully compile because `Only_Value_For_My_Kind` has
 kind, `A_Kind_I_Created`, which matches the one expected in the
 declaration for `DataExample`.
compileStatus_success :: DataExample Only_Value_For_My_Kind
compileStatus_success = DataExample
 This will fail to compile because `String` has
 kind, `Type`, not kind, `A_Kind_I_Created`.

 compileStatus_fail :: DataExample String
 compileStatus_fail = DataExample
type TypeExample :: A_Kind_I_Created > Type
type TypeExample a_kind_I_created_type_level_value = Int
newtype NewtypeExample :: A_Kind_I_Created > Type
newtype NewtypeExample a_kind_I_created_type_level_value = NewtypeExample Int
 Similarly, a type class can use kinds other than `Type`. This type class
 does not have any functions/values:
class TypeClassExample :: A_Kind_I_Created > Constraint
class TypeClassExample a_kind_I_created_type_level_value
03PolymorphicKinds.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.PolymorphicKinds where
 In the previous file, the following would not compile because `String` has
 a kind that is different than the one expected by `MyData` below:
data MyKind
foreign import data OnlyValueForMyKind :: MyKind
data MyData :: MyKind > Type
data MyData typeThatHasKind_'myKind' = MyData
 Fails to Compile:
 compileStatus_fail :: MyData String
 compileStatus_fail = MyData
 What if we wanted `MyData` to work "for all" kinds: `Type`, `MyKind`, or
 one written by someone else? We would use "forall" syntax. This syntax
 should look similar to how we would write it for a valuelevel function:
valueLevelFunction :: forall a. a > a
valueLevelFunction valueOfType_a = valueOfType_a
 Note: `kind` is often abbreviated as `k` to indicate kind.
data MyDataPolyKind :: forall kind. kind > Type
data MyDataPolyKind typeThatHasAGivenKind = MyDataPolyKind
compilesSuccessfully1 :: MyDataPolyKind String  kind is Type
compilesSuccessfully1 = MyDataPolyKind
compilesSuccessfully2 :: MyDataPolyKind OnlyValueForMyKind  kind is MyKind
compilesSuccessfully2 = MyDataPolyKind
04Proxy.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Proxy where
 When we write programs, arguments and definitions are at the valuelevel.
 Since the values of typelevel types (i.e. kinds) are types themselves,
 how do we pass typelevel values around in our program when the program
 is written at the value level?
 For typelevel values, we use a simple type that "stores" the typelevel
 value as a phantom type (see `Design Patterns/Phantom Types.md`).
 By making that phantom type polymorphic on kinds (i.e polykinded),
 one type will work for all kinds:
data Proxy :: forall kind. kind > Type
data Proxy k = Proxy
 Given that we have the following two custom kinds...
 data Kind_1
 = Kind_1_Value_1
 = Kind_1_Value_2
data Kind_1
foreign import data Kind_1_Value_1 :: Kind_1
foreign import data Kind_1_Value_2 :: Kind_1
data Kind_2
foreign import data Kind_2_Value :: Kind_2
 ... we can define a value that stores the typelevel value via `Proxy` ...
kind1Value1 :: Proxy Kind_1_Value_1
kind1Value1 = Proxy
kind2Value :: Proxy Kind_2_Value
kind2Value = Proxy
 ... and pass around the typelevel values by passing around the Proxy value
 and annotating the type signature with the typelevel value.
 This function only works on the first `Kind_1_Value`.
kind1_to_kind2_specific :: Proxy Kind_1_Value_1 > Proxy Kind_2_Value
kind1_to_kind2_specific _ { Proxy, which can be ignored } =
Proxy  Proxy whose type is different than first Proxy type
 This function only works on all possible `Kind_1_Value`s.
kind1_to_kind2_generic
:: forall (kind1Values :: Kind_1) (kind2Values :: Kind_2)
. Proxy kind1Values
> Proxy kind2Values
kind1_to_kind2_generic _ { Proxy, which can be ignored } =
Proxy  Proxy whose type is different than first Proxy type
 The above definition will make more sense in the future.
Defining Functions
Solve for X
Normally, when we define a function for valuelevel programming, it looks like this:
function :: InputType > OutputType
function InputValue = OutputValue
In other words, when given InputValue
, return OutputValue
. The direction of this "relationship" is ALWAYS in one direction: to the right (i.e. >
).
When we define a function for typelevel programming, we're not defining a function that takes some input and returns an output. Rather, we are defining a "relationship" between some input(s) and some output(s). In other words, these "relationships" can be applied in multiple directions to create multiple functions. One could say that typelevel functions work in multiple directions. To put it another way...:
function InputValue
outputsOutputValue
function OutputValue
outputsInputValue
Let's give a much clearer example by solving an equation:
total = x + y
Right now, the equation is making us solve for total
. However, with some simple rearranging, we can make it solve for x
total = x + y
total  y = x + y  y
total  y = x
x = total  y
We can also make it solve for y
:
total = x + y
total  x = x  x + y
total  x = y
y = total  x
Thus, we can take this "relationship"/equation and figure out one entity if we know the other two entities. Putting it into programming terms, if we have one relationship/equation (like that above), we can define three functions:
f1 :: X > Y > Total
f2 :: X > Total > Y
f3 :: Y > Total > X
This is the same idea used in typelevel programming. So, how does this actually work in Purescript? Multiparameter type classes and functional dependencies.
The Relationship/Equation  The Number of Functions & its type signature  The implementation of a function 

a multiparameter type class  functional dependencies (the exact number depends)  type class instances 
For example, assuming we had 1) a typelevel number called IntK
, 2) its valuelevel Proxy type, IProxy
, and 3) instances for the below type class, we could write an add
and two subtract
functions using just one relationship:
 the relationship itself
class AddOrSubtract :: IntK > IntK > IntK > Constraint
class AddOrSubtract x y total
 the normal "add" function: "total = x + y"
 x y > total
 the first 'subtract' function: "y = total  x"
, x total > y
 the second 'subtract' function: "x = total  y"
, y total > x
Then, we could use this one relationship as three different functions:
 given two IntK values, I can add them together by returning
 `total`, which is "calculated" via the type class `AddOrSubtract`
addTwoIntK :: forall x y total
. AddOrSubtract x y total
=> IProxy x > IProxy y > IProxy total
addTwoIntK _ _ = IProxyValue
 given two IntK values, I can subtract one from another by
 returning `x`/`y`, which is "calculated"
 via the type class `AddOrSubtract`
subtractIntK_1 :: forall x y total
. AddOrSubtract x y total
=> IProxy x > IProxy total > IProxy y
subtractIntK_1 _ _ = IProxyValue
subtractIntK_2 :: forall x y total
. AddOrSubtract x y total
=> IProxy y > IProxy total > IProxy x
subtractIntK_2 _ _ = IProxyValue
Unification
An Overview and How TypeLevel Functions "Compute"
Recall that the type checker / type constraint solver "computes" typelevel expressions by figuring out what type something is. Thus, the above analogy is helpful for understanding typelevel programming, but it is incomplete without an explanation on how types "unify". In short, unification is the way by which the compiler infers or figures out some type. For our context, it is how the type checker computes the "typelevel output" of a typelevel function. It does this by unifying the undefined types in a type class' definition with a concrete type's instance of that type class.
Let's review something first. In a type class definition and its instance, we have terms to refer to specific parts of it:
class Show a where
show :: a > String
{  1   2  }
instance (Show a) => Show (Box a) where
show (Box a) = show a
 Instance Context
 Instance Head
The "Instance Context" and "Instance Head" terms are crucial to understanding the unification rules below.
Unification is how logic programming works. A popular language which uses logic programming to compute is Prolog, which has a nice explanation on unification. (Curious readers can see the bottom of the file for links about Prolog). To see the rules for how this works in general, I've adapted the Prolog unification rules defined by Blackburn et al. below:
 Two concrete terms unify. A "term" for this explanation is either a
Type
or aKind
: Type
String
unifies withString
String
does not unify withInt
 Kind
 kind
BooleanK
unifies with kindBooleanK
 kind
BooleanK
does not unify with kindIntK
 kind
 a Kind term only unifies with other Kind terms, not Type terms.
 a Type term only unifies with other Type terms, not Kind terms.
 Type
 A concrete term and a polymorphic/generic term (i.e. term variable) unify and the term variable is assigned to a concrete term:
 Similar to how a variable can be assigned a value,
let a = 5
, so one assigns a term to a term variable:a = Int
(type variable assigned to a concrete type) ora = IntK
(kind variable assigned to a concrete kind). By this analogy, every time one sees ana
type/kind in a type/kind signature, they can replace it withInt
/IntK
.
 Similar to how a variable can be assigned a value,
 Two term variables unify and their relationship is saved
 Ignoring the
forall .
syntax, givenf :: Add a b c => Add c d e => a > b > d > e
, thec
type/kind in bothAdd
constraints are unified and their relationship is "saved". As soon as one of them is assigned to a concrete term, the other will be assigned that term, too.
 Ignoring the
 Complex "term chains" (e.g. a type class and a concrete type's instance of that type class) unify if and only if all of their corresponding arguments unify:
 the number of parameter terms in the type class is the same number of terms in the instance
class MyClass first second
instance MyClass String Int
 instance types unify with the class' constraints
class (SuperClass constrained) <= ThisClass constrained
instance SuperClass String
instance ThisClass String
 types in the instance context unify with their corresponding class
instance OtherConstraint a
instance (OtherConstraint a) => FastClass a
 the type of terms in the type class unify only with their corresponding term type in the instance:
 The type class' Kind terms are made to unify only with other Kind terms, not Type terms, in the instance
 The type class' Type terms are made to unify only with other Type terms, not Kind terms, in the instance.
 a term variable is only assigned once and is not assigned to two different concrete term during the unification process
 the number of parameter terms in the type class is the same number of terms in the instance
A typelevel function can only "compute" a typelevel expression when the types unify. This will fail in a few situations (this list may not be exhaustive):
 infinite unification: to unify some term,
a
, one must unify some term,b
, which can only be unified ifa
is unified. After making X many recursive steps, the type inferencer will eventually give up and throw an error. This is a hardcoded number in the Purescript compiler.  situations where the type inferencer cannot infer the correct type/kind
 situations where one needs to do "backtracking".
Backtracking Is Not (Currently) Supported
Here is an example of "backtracking". It will make more sense after you have read through the PatternMatchingUsingInstanceChains.purs
file.
class MyClass a
someValue :: Boolean
instance (SomeConstraint a) => MyClass a where
someValue = true
else instance MyClass a where
someValue = false
Here's the steps the compiler walks through:
 Find the first instance for MyClass ('firstInstance')
 Commit to that instance and check whether the
a
type fulfills theSomeConstraint
type class, too.  The
a
type does not satisfy that type class constraint.  The type checker fails.
The issue lies in step 2: the instance head is checked before the instance context. Once the type inferer commits to some instance, it cannot 'backtrack' to the starting position after realizing that its current instance fails. Ideally, the type inferer would jump back to step 2 and realize that there is another instance ('secondInstance') that always works for any a
type (since there is no constraint).
"Backtracking" could be implemented in the compiler by using instance guards, but this has not yet been done. For the current progress on this issue, see the related Purescript issue.
More Resources for Understanding Unification
To understand unification at a deeper level, see these links:
 Type Inference from Scratch. This video explains the ideas behind the notation used in the paper below.
 Introduction to Type Inference. This video will explain a few more pieces of the notation used in the paper below as well as the problems that arise in type inference. Unfortunately, the teacher goes through concepts quickly and runs out of time, so not everything is immediately understandable through the first viewing.
 Phil's overview of the Purescript Type's System, where he shows how the compiler unifies types using the same notation above.
 The original paper describing instance chains.
Functional Dependencies Reexamined
At times, it can be difficult for the type checker to infer what a given type is. Thus, one uses functional dependencies (FDs) to help the compiler. As a reminder, FDs inform the compiler how to infer what some types are given that it knows other types:
class Add :: IntK > IntK > IntK > Constraint
class Add x y total
 x y > total
, y total > x
, x total > y
However, sometimes the functional dependencies get a bit more complicated because there are two types on the righthand side of the arrow. This is where our analogy of a "FDs are typelevel functions" starts to break down since a valuelevel function can only return one value at a time. (Granted, one can use a Tuple
or Record
to return multiple values in a container, but the principle still applies.) With our "relationships", a single FD can sometimes define multiple typelevel functions depending on how we use them.
For example, look at the second FD of Prim.Row.Cons
:
 Note: Symbol is a typelevel String
class Cons :: forall kind. Symbol > kind > Row kind > Row kind > Constraint
class Cons label a tail row
 label a tail > row
, label row > a tail
The first FD can be read as
If you give me a label, its typelevel value, and a preexisting row (i.e. tail), then I can append that "label and typelevel value" association to the tail and give you back the result of the append (i.e. row)."
The second FD can be read as
If you provide me a row and the name of a label in that row, then I can give you either
 that label's type
 a row that excludes that labelvalue association (i.e. the tail)", or
 both
Let's demonstrate a few different examples via the REPL. This will be covered in more detail in this folder:
 Run
spago repl
 Import the
Prim.Row
module viaimport Prim.Row
 Use the
:paste
followed byCTRL+D
to paste the multilineverify*
functions below into the REPL.  Pass the corresponding arguments into the function to verify that it compiles.
 spago repl
 import Prim.Row
 :paste
verifyAddingRowToTailCompiles
:: forall tail finalRow
. Cons "first" String tail finalRow
=> Record tail > Record finalRow > String
verifyAddingRowToTailCompiles _ _ =
"If you see this message rather than an error, the relationship is true."
 CTRL+D
 Run the below function
verifyAddingRowToTailCompiles {apple: "haha"} {apple: "haha", first: "text" }
 Great! Let's now switch the `tail` and `finalRow` types
 in the `Cons` relationship.
 :paste
verifyRemovingRowFromTailCompiles
:: forall tail finalRow
. Cons "first" String finalRow tail
=> Record tail > Record finalRow > String
verifyRemovingRowFromTailCompiles _ _ =
"If you see this message rather than an error, the relationship is true."
 CTRL+D
 Run the below function
verifyRemovingRowFromTailCompiles {apple: "haha", first: "text" } {apple: "haha"}
Prolog Links
Learning Prolog is not necessary to understand how to do typelevel programming. However, one may want to learn more about it to understand the idea of unification better. If so, these links helped me understand Prolog:
 the "Learn Prolog Now" book, chapter 1  2
 the "Learn X in Y minutes where X = Prolog"
 this Intro to Prolog
Works Cited
(for lack of a better section header name...)
Blackburn, Patrick, et al. "2.1: Unification." Learn Prolog Now! vol. 7, College Publications, 2006, http://www.learnprolognow.org/lpnpage.php?pagetype=html&pageid=lpnhtmlse5. Accessed 9 Oct. 2018
01SingleArgSyntax.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Functions.SingleArgSyntax where
 Given the following valuelevel and typelevel types/values...
data InputType = InputValue
data OutputType = OutputValue
data InputKind
foreign import data InputValueK :: InputKind
data OutputKind
foreign import data OutputValueK :: OutputKind
 ... a valuelevel function...
 function's type signature
function :: InputType > OutputType
 function's implementation
function InputValue = OutputValue
 ... can be converted to a typelevel function using
  type classes
  functional dependencies
 the relationship
class TypeLevelFunction :: InputKind > OutputKind > Constraint
class TypeLevelFunction input output
 one function's type signature
 input > output
 another function's type signature
, output > input
 the implementation for both functions (since this is a simple example)
instance TypeLevelFunction InputValueK OutputValueK
02MultiArgSyntax.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Functions.MultiArgSyntax where
 Given the following valuelevel and typelevel types/values...
data InputType1 = InputValue1
data InputType2 = InputValue2
data OutputType = OutputValue
data InputKind1
foreign import data InputValueK1 :: InputKind1
data InputKind2
foreign import data InputValueK2 :: InputKind2
data OutputKind
foreign import data OutputValueK :: OutputKind
 ... a valuelevel function...
 function's type signature
function :: InputType1 > InputType2 > OutputType
 function's implementation
function InputValue1 InputValue2 = OutputValue
 ... converts to
 The relationship
class TypeLevelFunction :: InputKind1 > InputKind2 > OutputKind > Constraint
class TypeLevelFunction input1 input2 output
 the functions' type signatures
 input1 input2 > output
, input1 output > input2
, input2 output > input1
 functions sole implementation
instance implementation ::
TypeLevelFunction InputValueK1 InputValueK2 OutputValueK
03PatternMatchingUsingInstances.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Functions.PatternMatching.InstancesOnly where
 To handle more pattern matching, we add more values of the type class
 This...
data InputType2
= InputValue1
 InputValue2
 InputValue3
data OutputType2
= OutputValue1
 OutputValue2
 OutputValue3
function2 :: InputType2 > OutputType2
function2 InputValue1 = OutputValue1  first pattern match
function2 InputValue2 = OutputValue2  second pattern match
function2 InputValue3 = OutputValue3  third pattern match
 ... converts to...
data InputKind
foreign import data InputValue1 :: InputKind
foreign import data InputValue2 :: InputKind
foreign import data InputValue3 :: InputKind
data OutputKind
foreign import data OutputValue1 :: OutputKind
foreign import data OutputValue2 :: OutputKind
foreign import data OutputValue3 :: OutputKind
 the relationship
class TypeLevelFunction :: InputKind > OutputKind > Constraint
class TypeLevelFunction input output
 the functions' type signatures
 input > output
, output > input
 the implementations via pattern matching
instance firstPatternMatch :: TypeLevelFunction InputValue1 OutputValue1
instance TypeLevelFunction InputValue2 OutputValue2
instance thirdPatternMatch :: TypeLevelFunction InputValue3 OutputValue3

 An example using YesNo and Zero/One
data YesNo = Yes  No
data ZeroOrOne = Zero  One
toInt :: YesNo > ZeroOrOne
 input = output
toInt Yes = One
toInt No = Zero
 converts to
data YesNoKind
foreign import data YesK :: YesNoKind
foreign import data NoK :: YesNoKind
data ZeroOrOneKind
foreign import data OneK :: ZeroOrOneKind
foreign import data ZeroK :: ZeroOrOneKind
class ToInt :: YesNoKind > ZeroOrOneKind > Constraint
class ToInt input output  input > output
instance ToInt YesK OneK
instance ToInt NoK ZeroK
04PatternMatchingUsingInstanceChains.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Functions.PatternMatching.InstanceChains where
{
So far, our typelevel function's pattern matches use literal values.
Whenever we write...
instance TL_Function InputValue1 OutputValue1
instance TL_Function InputValue2 OutputValue2
... it's the equivalent of writing
tl_Function :: Input > Output
tl_Function InputValue1 = OutputValue1
tl_Function InputValue2 = OutputValue2
}
 Let's say we have the given valuelevel and typelevel types/values:
data Fruit
= Apple
 Orange
 Banana
 Blueberry
 Cherry
data ZeroOrOne = Zero  One
data FruitKind
foreign import data AppleK :: FruitKind
foreign import data OrangeK :: FruitKind
foreign import data BananaK :: FruitKind
foreign import data BlueberryK :: FruitKind
foreign import data CherryK :: FruitKind
data ZeroOrOneKind
foreign import data ZeroK :: ZeroOrOneKind
foreign import data OneK :: ZeroOrOneKind
 To write pattern matches with a 'catchall' underscore binding
fruitToInt :: Fruit > ZeroOrOne
fruitToInt Apple = Zero
fruitToInt _ { Orange .. Cherry } = One
 we can use a feature called "Type Class Instance Chains:"
class FruitToInt :: FruitKind > ZeroOrOneKind > Constraint
class FruitToInt a i
 a > i {
Notice that we have omitted this type signature because
we don't know what to do when we know `i` but not `a`
, i > a }
instance FruitToInt AppleK ZeroK
else instance FruitToInt a OneK
{
which is the same as writing...
instance FruitToInt AppleK ZeroK
instance FruitToInt OrangeK OneK
instance FruitToInt BananaK OneK
instance FruitToInt BlueBerryK OneK
instance FruitToInt CherryK OneK
}
{
As of this writing, Purescript does not support all of the features
described in the paper below (i.e. backtracking), but it does work
for simpler use cases like above
Here's the related Purescript issue:
https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/2315
See the original paper here:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jmorri14/pubs/morrisicfp2010instances.pdf
}
01Reflection.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Reflection where
 ignore this
import Prelude (class Show)
 Reflection syntax
 Converting a typelevel value into a valuelevel value
 This code...

type Value_Level_Type = String  for easier readability
data CustomType = TypeValue
reflectVL :: CustomType > Value_Level_Type
reflectVL TypeValue = "valuelevel value"

 ... converts to...

data CustomKind
foreign import data CustomKindValue :: CustomKind
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
 "typelevel value to valuelevel value"
class TLI_to_VLI :: CustomKind > Constraint
class TLI_to_VLI customKind where
reflectCustomKind :: Proxy customKind > Value_Level_Type
instance TLI_to_VLI CustomKindValue where {
reflectCustomKind Proxy = "valuelevel value" }
reflectCustomKind _ = "valuelevel value"

 An example using the Booleanlike data type YesNo:
data YesNo = Yes  No
data YesNoKind
foreign import data YesK :: YesNoKind
foreign import data NoK :: YesNoKind
{
Read yesK and noK as:
yesK = (YesNoProxyValue :: YesNoProxy Yes)  a value of type "YesNoProxy Yes"
noK = (YesNoProxyValue :: YesNoProxy No)  a value of type "YesNoProxy No" }
yesK :: Proxy YesK
yesK = Proxy
noK :: Proxy NoK
noK = Proxy
class IsYesNoKind :: YesNoKind > Constraint
class IsYesNoKind a where
reflectYesNo :: Proxy a > YesNo
instance IsYesNoKind YesK where
 reflectYesNo (Proxy :: Proxy Yes) = Yes
reflectYesNo _ = Yes
instance IsYesNoKind NoK where
 reflectYesNo (Proxy :: Proxy No) = No
reflectYesNo _ = No
 We can also use instance chains here to distinguish
 one from another
class IsYes :: YesNoKind > Constraint
class IsYes a where
isYes :: Proxy a > YesNo
instance IsYes YesK where
isYes _ = Yes
else instance IsYes a where
isYes _ = No
 Using instance chains here is more convenient if we had
 a lot more typelevel values than just 2. In some cases,
 it is needed in cases where a typelevel type can have an
 infinite number of values, such as a typelevel String
 Open a REPL, import this module, and then run this code:
 reflectYesNo yesK
 reflectYesNo noK
 isYes yesK
 isYes noK
 necessary for not getting errors while trying the functions in the REPL
instance Show YesNo where
show Yes = "Yes"
show No = "No"
02Reification.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Reification where
 ignore this
import Prelude (class Show)
 Reification = valuelevel value > typelevel value
 Given a yes/no data type

 data YesNo = Yes  No
 In valuelevel programming,
ignoreMe :: String
ignoreMe =
 we can write something like this...
yesno_to_string_function a_yesno_value_determined_at_runtime
{
This function does not know which value of the YesNo type
(i.e. `Yes` or `No`) it will be when the program is executed.
However, since the function knows how to map both values
of the YesNo type into an value of a String type, it doesn't matter.
Similarly, for typelevel programming, we won't always know which
value of the valuelevel type it will be. However, if we know how to
reify every value of that valuelevel type into an value of
a typelevel type, it doesn't matter.
Reification works by using callback functions:
}
 Given the following code, which
  defines the typeLevel YesNo and its two values
  defines a Proxy type and its two values
  defines the reflection function for both values ...
data YesNo = Yes  No
data YesNoKind
foreign import data YesK :: YesNoKind
foreign import data NoK :: YesNoKind
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
yesK :: Proxy YesK
yesK = Proxy
noK :: Proxy NoK
noK = Proxy
class IsYesNoKind :: YesNoKind > Constraint
class IsYesNoKind a where
reflectYesNo :: Proxy a > YesNo
instance IsYesNoKind YesK where
reflectYesNo _ = Yes
instance IsYesNoKind NoK where
reflectYesNo _ = No
 We can reify a YesNo by defining a callback function that receives
 the corresponding typelevel value as its only argument
 (where we do typelevel programming):
reifyYesNo :: forall returnType
. YesNo
> (forall b. IsYesNoKind b => Proxy b > returnType)
> returnType
reifyYesNo Yes function = function yesK
reifyYesNo No function = function noK
 necessary for not getting errors while trying the functions in the REPL
instance Show YesNo where
show Yes = "Yes"
show No = "No"
 necessary to compile
yesno_to_string_function :: YesNo > String
yesno_to_string_function Yes = "yes"
yesno_to_string_function No = "no"
a_yesno_value_determined_at_runtime :: YesNo
a_yesno_value_determined_at_runtime = Yes
10Conventions.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.Conventions where
 This file shows the patterns and naming schemes used when writing
 typelevel programming code. Refer to this whenever you're lost.
 Entities that have the comment "NANS" mean "no apparent naming scheme".
 In other words, there is not a naming scheme that people seem to follow.
 So, name it however you want.
 Entities that do seem to have naming scheme will have their explanation
 above them in a comment.
type Value_Level_Type = String
data KindName
foreign import data Value :: KindName
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
 NANS
inst :: Proxy Value
inst = Proxy
 The class name is usually "Is[KindName]"
class IsKindName :: KindName > Constraint
class IsKindName a where
 and the reflect function is usually "reflect[KindName]"
reflectKindName :: Proxy a > Value_Level_Type
instance IsKindName Value where
reflectKindName _ = "valuelevel value"
 NANS
class IsKindName a <= ConstrainedToKindName a
 NANS
instance ConstrainedToKindName Value
 Usually reify[KindName]
reifyKindName :: forall r
. Value_Level_Type
> (forall a. IsKindName a => Proxy a > r)
> r
reifyKindName _valueLevel function = function inst
11SymbolSyntax.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.SymbolSyntax where
vl_string :: String
vl_string = "a valuelevel string!"
 `Symbols` are typelevel strings
 Compiler imports this automatically via the Prim module
data Symbol_
 This proxy type is defined in the purescriptprelude package
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
 use literal string syntax
tl_literalString :: Proxy "a typelevel string!"
tl_literalString = Proxy
 use multiline string syntax!
tl_multiLineString :: Proxy "a typelevel \
\string!"
tl_multiLineString = Proxy
 use triplequote string syntax
tl_tripleQuoteStringSyntax :: Proxy """triplequote string syntax
works as long as each new line is indented, so that the compiler
doesn't think the string is the definition for
the 'tl_tripleQuoteStringSyntax' function.
The string will automatically escape special characters
(e.g. '.', '*', '/')."""
tl_tripleQuoteStringSyntax = Proxy
{
Symbol's other typelevel programming constructs are in other modules
that must be imported to work:
 purescriptprelude:
 `IsSymbol` typeclass
 `reifySymbol` function
 prim (typelevel functions)
 Compare: "a" compare "b" == LT
 Append: "hello" append "world" == "hello world"
 Cons: "a" cons "pple" = "apple"
 Uncons: "string" = "s" append "tring"
}
12IntegerSyntax.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.IntegerSyntax where
 value level integers
vl_int1 :: Int
vl_int1 = 1
vl_int2 :: Int
vl_int2 = 0x01  alternative way to write them
vl_int3 :: Int
vl_int3 = 1_000_000  use underscores for thousands character
 `Int` are typelevel integers
 Compiler imports kind `Int` automatically via the Prim module
data Int_
 This proxy type is defined in the purescriptprelude package
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
 use literal int syntax
tl_literalInt1 :: Proxy 1234
tl_literalInt1 = Proxy
 use hexadecimal syntax!
tl_literalInt2 :: Proxy 0x01
tl_literalInt2 = Proxy
 use underscore syntax
tl_literalInt3 :: Proxy 1_000_000
tl_literalInt3 = Proxy
 negative values must be wrapped in parenthesis
 use literal int syntax
tl_literalInt1' :: Proxy (1234)
tl_literalInt1' = Proxy
 use hexadecimal syntax!
tl_literalInt2' :: Proxy (0x01)
tl_literalInt2' = Proxy
 use underscore syntax
tl_literalInt3' :: Proxy (1_000_000)
tl_literalInt3' = Proxy
{
Int's other typelevel programming constructs are in other modules
that must be imported to work:
 purescriptprelude:
 `Reflectable` typeclass
 `reflectType` function
 `reifyType` function
 prim (typelevel functions)
 Add: "a" compare "b" == LT
 Mul: "hello" append "world" == "hello world"
 ToString: "a" cons "pple" = "apple"
}
21RowSyntax.purs
module Syntax.TypeLevel.RowSyntax where
 "row kinds" look like "Row k" where 'k' is another kind.
 Usually, it's used with the kind, `Type`, to make Records (e.g. "Row Type")
 You cannot find that much documentation on `Row` kinds because
 they are built into the compiler.
type Example_of_an_Empty_Row :: forall k. Row k
type Example_of_an_Empty_Row = ()
type Example_of_a_Single_Row_of_Types = (fieldName :: ValueType)
type Example_of_a_Multiple_Row_of_Types = (first :: ValueType, second :: ValueType)
data Proxy :: forall k. k > Type
data Proxy kind = Proxy
one_Key_Value_Pair :: Proxy (key :: Int)
one_Key_Value_Pair = Proxy
two_Key_Value_Pairs :: Proxy (key1 :: Int, key2 :: Int)
two_Key_Value_Pairs = Proxy
many_Key_Value_Pair :: Proxy ( key1 :: Int
, key2 :: String
 , ...
, keyN :: (Int > String)
)
many_Key_Value_Pair = Proxy
nested_Key_Value_Pair :: Proxy (outerKey :: Proxy (innerKey :: Int))
nested_Key_Value_Pair = Proxy
 Since row kinds can be used with other kinds, one could also define
 a row of Symbols:
type Example_of_a_Single_Row_of_Symbols = (a :: "a symbol")
type Example_of_a_Multiple_Row_of_Symbols = (a :: "a symbol", b :: "another symbol")
 These can also be used with the quotedkey syntax (explained previously in the
 Records folder):
type Quoted_Key_Row_of_Symbols = ("the key" :: "the symbol")
row_of_symbols_proxy :: Proxy ( firstField :: "this is a symbol"
, secondField :: "this is another symbol"
)
row_of_symbols_proxy = Proxy
{
Just like Symbol, Row's other typelevel programming constructs
are defined in the builtin `Prim` package and the `purescriptprelude` library.
}
 needed to compile
type ValueType = String
RowList
The final aspect of typelevel programming to learn is RowList
. This is where typelevel programming often gets interesting because one can do interesting things with records at the typelevel.
It is not covered in this folder. Rather, it is covered in Hello World/Type Level Programming/src/RowList
because one needs to understand how Data.Foldable.foldl
works (which is explained in Hello World/Collections and Loops
). Until one understands what a "fold left" is, understanding RowList
will not make much sense either.
Module Syntax
Selfexplanatory
Due to the compiler being efficient and not wanting to import unused values/functions/etc., compiling this folder will emit a lot of warnings. If the warnings look like either of these two messages, they can be ignored:
First
Warning [current] of [total]:
in module Syntax.Module.FullExample
at src/11FullModuleSyntax.purs line 58, column 1  line 58, column 37
The import of module Module.SubModule.SubSubModule is redundant
See https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/errors/UnusedImport.md for more information,
or to contribute content related to this warning.
Second
Warning [current] of [total]:
in module Syntax.Module.Importing
at src/03BasicImporting.purs line 29, column 1  line 29, column 58
There is an existing import of ModuleDataType, consider merging the import lists
See https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/errors/DuplicateSelectiveImport.md for more information,
or to contribute content related to this warning.
File Location Conventions
 a module named...
module Module1 where
 imports and source code
 ... should be located in the file...
 src/Module1.purs
 whereas
 a submodule named...
module Module.SubModule.SubSubModule where
 imports and source code
 ... should be located in the file...
 src/Module/SubModule/SubSubModule.purs
Real World Naming Conventions
See the Style Guide's section on Module Names
01BasicSyntax.purs
module Syntax.Module.Basic
(
 exports appear here
exportedFunction
) where
 imports must appear at the top or you'll get a compiler error
import Prelude
 everything else in the module goes underneath it
exportedFunction :: String > String
exportedFunction x = x <> "more stuff"
 an import cannot go here since we are no longer
 in the "import section" of the file
notExportedValue :: Int
notExportedValue = 3
02BasicExporting.purs
module Syntax.Module.Exporting
 exports go here by just writing the name
( value
, function, (>@>>>)  aliases must be wrapped in parenthesis
 when exporting type classes, there are two rules:
  you must precede the type class name with the keyword 'class'
  you must also export the type class' function (or face compilation errors)
, class TypeClass, tcFunction
 when exporting modules, you must precede the module name with
 the keyword 'module'
, module ExportedModule
 The type is exported, but no one can create a value of it
 outside of this module
, ExportDataType1_ButNotItsConstructors
 syntax sugar for 'all constructors'
 Either all or none of a type's constructors must be exported
, ExportDataType2_AndAllOfItsConstructors(..)
 Type aliases can also be exported
, ExportedTypeAlias
 When type aliases are aliased using infix notation, one must export
 both the type alias, and the infix notation where 'type' must precede
 the infix notation
, ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation, type (<<>>)
 Data constructor alias; exporting the alias requires you
 to also export the constructor it aliases
, ExportedDataType3_InfixNotation(Infix_Constructor), (<>)
, ExportedKind
, ExportedKindValue
) where
 imports go here
import ExportedModule
value :: Int
value = 3
function :: String > String
function x = x
infix 4 function as >@>>>
class TypeClass a where
tcFunction :: a > a > a
data ExportDataType1_ButNotItsConstructors = Constructor1A
data ExportDataType2_AndAllOfItsConstructors
= Constructor2A
 Constructor2B
 Constructor2C
type ExportedTypeAlias = Int
data ExportedDataType3_InfixNotation = Infix_Constructor Int Int
infixr 4 Infix_Constructor as <>
type ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation = String
infixr 4 type ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation as <<>>
data ExportedKind
foreign import data ExportedKindValue :: ExportedKind
03BasicImporting.purs
 For now, ignore the `module Exports` export
 and the "import Module (value) as Exports" syntax
 This will be explained later and is necessary now
 to prevent the compiler from emitting lots of warnings.
module Syntax.Module.Importing (module Exports) where
 One never just imports the entire module.
 Rather, one must specify what is being imported.
 The following import statements emit a compiler warning:
 import Module
 import Module.SubModule.SubSubModule
 import values from a module
import ModuleValues (value1, value2) as Exports
 imports functions from a module
import ModuleFunctions (function1, function2) as Exports
 imports function alias from a module
import ModuleFunctionAliases ((/=), (===), (>>**>>)) as Exports
 imports type class from the module
import ModuleTypeClass (class TypeClass) as Exports
 import a type but none of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType) as Exports
 import a type and one of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(Constructor1)) as Exports
 import a type and some of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(Constructor1, Constructor2)) as Exports
 import a type and all of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(..)) as Exports
import ModuleKind (ImportedKind, ImportedKindValue) as Exports
 To prevent warnings from being emitted during compilation
 the above imports have to either be used here or
 reexported (explained later in this folder).
04ResolvingNamingConflictsUsingKeywordHiding.purs
 There are situations where a function in one module
 may be the same name as a function in another module
 for example
 module ModuleNameClash1 (sameFunctionName1) where  ...
 module ModuleNameClash2 (sameFunctionName1) where  ...
 In this file, how do we use both of them?
 We can use the 'hiding' keyword
module Syntax.Module.ResolvingNamingConflicts.ViaHiding where
import ModuleNameClash1 (sameFunctionName1)
import ModuleNameClash2 hiding (sameFunctionName1)
 now 'sameFunctionName1' refers to ModuleNameClash1's function,
 not ModuleNameClash2's function
myFunction1 :: Int > Int
myFunction1 a = sameFunctionName1 a
04ResolvingNamingConflictsUsingModuleAliases.purs
{
There are situations where a function in one module
may be the same name as a function in another module
For example
module ModuleNameClash1 (sameFunctionName1) where  ...
module ModuleNameClash2 (sameFunctionName1) where  ...
This can also arise when data type share the same name:
module ModuleNameClash1 (SameDataName(..)) where
module ModuleNameClash2 (SameDataName(..)) where
In this file, how do we use both of them?
We can use Module aliases }
module Syntax.Module.ResolvingNamingConflicts.ViaModuleAliases where
import ModuleNameClash1 as M1
import ModuleNameClash2 as M2
myFunction2 :: Int > Int
myFunction2 a = M1.sameFunctionName1 (M2.sameFunctionName1 a)
dataDifferences :: M1.SameDataName > M2.SameDataName > String
dataDifferences M1.Constructor M2.Constructor = "code works despite name clash"
05ReexportingModulesorSubmodules.purs
 To get the "import RootModule.SubModule.SubModule" syntax
module Syntax.Module.ExportingModules
( module ModuleAlias
) where
 We can use module alises to export multiple things
 (e.g. types, constructors, functions, values)
 from multiple modules conveniently
import Module1 (anInt1) as ModuleAlias
import Module2 (anInt2) as ModuleAlias
import Module3 (anInt3) as ModuleAlias
 By convention, this is usually "Exports"
import Module4.SubModule1 (someFunction) as ModuleAlias
{
This enables the syntax:
import Syntax.Module.ExportingModules (anInt, anInt2, anInt3, someFunction)
 or we can use module aliases
import Syntax.Module.ExportingModules as EM
 in code
EM.anInt
EM.someFunction
}
06ExportingEntireCurrentModule.purs
{
Let's say you have a module with A LOT of entities
and you want to export ALL of them. (This 'trick' doesn't
work if you want to export some but not all entities.)
Rather than typing all of the exports, you can use the
"reexport module" syntax to export the current module
}
module Syntax.Module.ExportingEntireCurrentModule
(
 By exporting the current module,
 we can export all of its entities at once.
module Syntax.Module.ExportingEntireCurrentModule
) where
 14 entities in total
a :: String
a = "a"
b :: String
b = "b"
c :: String
c = "c"
d :: String
d = "d"
e :: String
e = "e"
f :: String
f = "f"
g :: String
g = "g"
h :: String
h = "h"
i :: String
i = "i"
j :: String
j = "j"
k :: String
k = "k"
l :: String
l = "l"
m :: String
m = "m"
n :: String
n = "n"
11FullModuleSyntax.purs
module Syntax.Module.FullExample
 exports go here by just writing the name
( value
, function, (>@>>>)  aliases must be wrapped in parenthesis
 when exporting type classes, there are two rules:
  you must precede the type class name with the keyword 'class'
  you must also export the type class' function (or face compilation errors)
, class TypeClass, tcFunction
 when exporting modules, you must precede the module name with
 the keyword 'module'
, module ExportedModule
 The type is exported, but no one can create a value of it
 outside of this module
, ExportDataType1_ButNotItsConstructors
 syntax sugar for 'all constructors'
 Either all or none of a type's constructors must be exported
, ExportDataType2_AndAllOfItsConstructors(..)
 Type aliases can also be exported
, ExportedTypeAlias
 When type aliases are aliased using infix notation, one must export
 both the type alias, and the infix notation where 'type' must precede
 the infix notation
, ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation, type (<<>>)
 Data constructor alias; exporting the alias requires you
 to also export the constructor it aliases
, ExportedDataType3_InfixNotation(Infix_Constructor), (<>)
, ExportedKind
, ExportedKindValue
) where
 imports go here
 imports just the module
import Module
 import a submodule
import Module.SubModule.SubSubModule
 import values from a module
import ModuleValues (value1, value2)
 imports functions from a module
import ModuleFunctions (function1, function2)
 imports function alias from a module
import ModuleFunctionAliases ((/=), (===), (>>**>>))
 imports type class from the module
import ModuleTypeClass (class TypeClass)
 import a type but none of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType)
 import a type and one of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(Constructor1))
 import a type and some of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(Constructor1, Constructor2))
 import a type and all of its constructors
import ModuleDataType (DataType(..))
 resolve name conflicts using "hiding" keyword
import ModuleNameClash1 (sameFunctionName1)
import ModuleNameClash2 hiding (sameFunctionName1)
 resolve name conflicts using module aliases
import ModuleNameClash1 as M1
import ModuleNameClash2 as M2
 Reexport modules
import Module1 (anInt1) as Exports
import Module2 (anInt2) as Exports
import Module3 (anInt3) as Exports
import Module4.SubModule1 (someFunction) as Exports
import ModuleKind (ImportedKind, ImportedKindValue) as Exports
import Prelude
import ExportedModule
 To prevent warnings from being emitted during compilation
 the above imports have to either be used here or
 reexported (explained later in this folder).
value :: Int
value = 3
function :: String > String
function x = x
infix 4 function as >@>>>
class TypeClass a where
tcFunction :: a > a > a
 now 'sameFunctionName1' refers to ModuleF1's function, not ModuleF2's function
myFunction1 :: Int > Int
myFunction1 a = sameFunctionName1 a
myFunction2 :: Int > Int
myFunction2 a = M1.sameFunctionName1 (M2.sameFunctionName1 a)
dataDifferences :: M1.SameDataName > M2.SameDataName > String
dataDifferences M1.Constructor M2.Constructor = "code works despite name clash"
data ExportDataType1_ButNotItsConstructors = Constructor1A
data ExportDataType2_AndAllOfItsConstructors
= Constructor2A
 Constructor2B
 Constructor2C
type ExportedTypeAlias = Int
data ExportedDataType3_InfixNotation = Infix_Constructor Int Int
infixr 4 Infix_Constructor as <>
type ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation = String
infixr 4 type ExportedTypeAlias_InfixNotation as <<>>
data ExportedKind
foreign import data ExportedKindValue :: ExportedKind
Prelude Syntax
This folder documents the syntax that is enabled by importing Prelude.
Ignore this folder's contents until you are reading through the Prelude
folder in the Hello World
folder. When you are in that folder and you see unfamiliar syntax, you should probably return here:
 do notation
 ado notation
 Natural Transformations
Discard
There is a type class in Prelude called Discard
that does not appear in our diagram of Prelude's type classes. It is implemented only by Unit
.:
 PseudoSyntax: combines the class and its only instance into one block:
class Discard Unit where
discard :: forall f b. Bind f => f Unit > (Unit > f b) > f b
discard = bind
This seemingly pointless type class insures that you do not accidentally "throw away" the result of a computation when you did not intend to do so (covered next in 'do notation'). One should almost never implement it for another type, unless one knows what they are doing and they have a very rare use case for it.
02DoNotation.purs
module Syntax.Prelude.Notation.Do where
import Prelude
{
In imperative programming, one often writes some sequential code like:
x = 4
y = x + 4
z = toString x
print z
Since each line depends on the line before it,
this implies sequential computation, or Monads. We have "do" notation
to imitate this style of code
Recall the type signature of `bind`...
bind :: m a > (a > m b) > m b
... and that ">>=" is an alias for `bind`
Thus, these two expressions are the same:
bind computation (\result > newComputationUsing result)
computation >>= (\result > newComputationUsing result)
}
do1_bind :: Box Unit
do1_bind =
bind get4 (\x >
bind (add4To x) (\y >
bind (toString y) (\z >
print z
)
)
)
 which is better understood by replacing `bind` with ">>=" as
do1_alias :: Box Unit
do1_alias =
get4 >>= (\x >
 only call `add4To x` if `get4` actually produces something
add4To x >>= (\y >
toString y >>= (\z >
print z
)
)
)
 which is better understood and more readable as
do1_do_notation :: Box Unit
do1_do_notation = do
x < get4
y < add4To x
z < toString y
 last line in do notation must not end with `value < computation`
 but should just end in `computation`
print z
 Just like in regular functions, we could use 'letin` syntax
do2_bind :: Box Unit
do2_bind =
bind get4 (\x >
let y = x + 4
in bind (toString y) (\z > print z)
)
 which is better understood by replacing `bind` with ">>=" as
do2_alias :: Box Unit
do2_alias =
get4 >>= (\x >
 While replacing 'bind' with '>>=' is better,
 this letin syntax is still not very readable here...
let y = x + 4
in toString y >>= (\z > print z)
)
 but we can write it better as
do2_do_notation :: Box Unit
do2_do_notation = do
x < get4
let y = x + 4  no need to have a corresponding `in` statement
z < toString y
print z
do3_ignoreValue_bind :: Box Unit
do3_ignoreValue_bind =
bind get4 (\x >
bind (takeValueAndIgnoreResult x) (\_ { this underscore is 'unit' } >
print x
)
)
 which is better understood by replacing `bind` with ">>=" as in
do3_ignoreValue_alias :: Box Unit
do3_ignoreValue_alias =
get4 >>= (\x > takeValueAndIgnoreResult x >>= (\_ > print x))
 gets turned into...
do3_ignoreValue_do_notation :: Box Unit
do3_ignoreValue_do_notation = do
x < get4
_ < takeValueAndIgnoreResult x
print x
do4_discard_bind :: Box Unit
do4_discard_bind =
bind (Box unit) (\unit_ >
bind (Box unit) (\unit__ >
print 5
)
)
 which is better understood by replacing `bind` with ">>=" as in
do4_discard_alias :: Box Unit
do4_discard_alias =
(Box unit) >>= (\unit_ >
(Box unit) >>= (\unit__ >
print 5
)
)
 can be written as...
do4_discard_syntax :: Box Unit
do4_discard_syntax = do {
When we omit the "binding <" syntax, as in
four < Box 4  line 1
Box a  line 2
five < Box 5  line 3
the compiler translates `line 2` to
"discard (Box a) (\_ > (Box 5) >>= (\five > ... ))"
This is fine if the argument to the next function would be Unit
four < Box 4
unit < Box unit  here, we could omit the "unit <" syntax
five < Box 5
Box unit  same thing
If we had accidentally written code that amounted to this...
four < Box 4
Box 10  notice how there is no "10 <" fragment
five < Box 5
... the compiler would notify us that we had discarded a nonunit value
(i.e. 10):
"Could not find instance of Discard for Int"
Why does it do this? To highlight that we have accidentally dropped the
result of the computation. If you want to intentionally drop a result,
use `void $ monad` or the "_ < computation" syntax }
x < (Box 5)
(Box unit)  since it returns unit, it's ok to use discard here
 rather than write this...
map (\_ > unit) (Box 5)
 or even this...
(\_ > unit) <$> (Box 5)
 we write this:
void $ Box 5
print 5
do_full_syntax :: Box Unit
do_full_syntax = do
x < get4
_ < takeValueAndIgnoreResult x
(Box unit)
void $ takeValueAndIgnoreResult x
let y = x + 4
z < toString y
 last line in do notation must NOT end with `value < expression`
 but should just end in `expression`
print z
 needed to make this file compile
data Box a = Box a
derive instance Functor Box
instance Apply Box where
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Applicative Box where
pure a = Box a
instance Bind Box where
bind (Box a) f = f a
get4 :: Box Int
get4 = Box 4
add4To :: Int > Box Int
add4To i = Box (i + 4)
toString :: Int > Box String
toString i = Box (show i)
takeValueAndIgnoreResult :: forall a. a > Box a
takeValueAndIgnoreResult a = Box a
print :: forall a. a > Box Unit
print _ = Box unit
Reading Do Notation as Nested Binds
Be aware of where the parenthesis appear when using multiple bind expressions (e.g. m a >>= aToMB >>= bToMC
). Below provides a summary of the section called "Do notation" in this article:
data Maybe a
= Nothing
 Just a
instance Bind Maybe where
bind :: forall a b. Maybe a > (a > Maybe b) > Maybe b
 when given a Nothing, stop all future computations and return immediately.
bind Nothing _ = Nothing
 when given a Just, run the function on its contents
bind (Just a) f = f a
half :: Int > Maybe Int
half x  x % 2 == 0 = Just (x / 2)
 otherwise = Nothing
 This statement
(Just 128) >>= half >>= half >>= half
 desugars first to
(Just 128) >>= (\original > half original >>= half >>= half )
 which can be better understood as
(Just 128) >>= aToMB
 which can be better understood as
bind (Just 128) >>= aToMB
 since the latter ">>=" calls are nested inside of the first one, one
 should read the above computation as "Only continue if the previous
 `bind`/`>>=` call was successful."
 In this situation, it is:
bind (Just 128) (\original > half original >>= half >>= half)
 reduces to
(\128 > half 128 >>= half >>= half)
 reduces to
half 128 >>= half >>= half
 ... and so forth until we get the result:
Just 16
 Similarly
Nothing >>= half >>= half >>= half == Nothing
 desguars first to
Nothing >>= (\value > half value >>= half >>= half) == Nothing
 which can be better understood as
Nothing >>= aToMB == Nothing
 which can be better understood as
bind Nothing aToMB == Nothing
 and, looking at the instance of Bind above, reduces to Nothing
 The other `half` computations are never executed.
 Thus, given this function...
half3Times :: Maybe Int > Maybe Int
half3Times maybeI = do
original < maybeI
first < half original  ===
second < half first   a > m b
third < half second  
pure third  ===
 ... passing in `Nothing` doesn't compute anything
half3Times Nothing == Nothing
 Likewise, passing in a bad starting value will also stop the computation
 as soon as possible:
(Just 3) >>= half >>= (\thisWontRun > pure thisWontRun)
 will desugar to
bind (Just 3) half =
 will desugar to
half 3
 which desugars to
half 3  3 % 2 == 0
 otherwise = Nothing
 which tests whether `3 % 2 == 0` (false) the 'otherwise path'
Nothing >>= (\thisWontRun > pure thisWontRun)
 which desugars to
bind NOthing (\thisWontRun > pure thisWontRun)
 which desugars to
Nothing
04AdoNotation.purs
{
Link to original issue's comment
where this is fully explained:
https://github.com/purescript/purescript/pull/2889#issuecomment301260299
Following the 'do' notation of Monads, the 'ado' notation is for Applicative
Since Applicative can be used for parellel computation, one **might**
read the following code as
"produces some value at the same time it's producing another value"
rather than sequential computation, which is
"produces some value, and then uses that value to produce another value"
It depends on whether parallel applicatives are used or not.
}
module Syntax.Prelude.Notation.Ado where
import Prelude
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
 infixl 4 map as <$>
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
 infixl 4 apply as <*>
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a

pure_no_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > a > Box b
pure_no_sugar f a = pure (f a)
pure_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > a > Box b
pure_sugar f a = ado
in f a

map_no_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map_no_sugar f g = (\x > f x) <$> g
map_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map_sugar f g = ado
x < g
in f x

 See `lift2` from Apply: https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescriptprelude/4.1.0/docs/Control.Apply#v:lift2
liftN_no_sugar :: forall a b c. (a > b > c) > Box a > Box b > Box c
liftN_no_sugar f g h = (\x y > f x y) <$> g <*> h
liftN_sugar :: forall a b c. (a > b > c) > Box a > Box b > Box c
liftN_sugar f g h = ado
x < g
y < h
in f x y

liftN_unit_no_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box Unit > Box b
liftN_unit_no_sugar f g h = (\x _ > f x) <$> g <*> h
liftN_unit_sugar :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box Unit > Box b
liftN_unit_sugar f g h = ado
x < g
h
in f x

liftN_Let_no_sugar :: forall a. (Int > Int > a) > Box Int > Box Unit > Box a
liftN_Let_no_sugar f g h = (\x > let y = x + 1 in (\_ > f x y)) <$> g <*> h
liftN_Let_sugar :: forall a. (Int > Int > a) > Box Int > Box Unit > Box a
liftN_Let_sugar f g h = ado
x < g
let y = x + 1
h
in f x y
05NaturalTransformation.purs
module Syntax.Prelude.NaturalTransformations where
 Given this code
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
 This function's type signature...
box1_to_box2_noisy :: forall a. Box1 a > Box2 a
box1_to_box2_noisy (Box1 a) = Box2 a
 ... has a lot of noise and could be rewritten to something
 that communicates our intent better via Natural Transformations...
 Read: given an 'a' that is inside of a 'container' or 'context',
 change the container F to container G.
 I don't care what type 'a' is since it's irrelevant
type NaturalTransformation_ f g = forall a. f a > g a
infixr 4 type NaturalTransformation_ as ~>
box1_to_box2 :: Box1 ~> Box2 { much less noisy than
box1_to_box2 :: forall a. Box1 a > Box2 a }
box1_to_box2 (Box1 a) = Box2 a
Modifying Do/Ado Syntax Sugar
This folder documents how one can modify what occurs when using "do notation" and "ado notation." You will likely not need to use these as a beginner. Over time, once you have learned more about FP, these features may be useful. Feel free to skip or skim through this on your first read.
The Problem
"do notation" and "ado notation" are purely syntax sugar. Rather than having to write some rather verbose code, we can use these two keywords to make the compiler do all of that for us.
It would be nice if one could modify how this syntax sugar gets desugared in some situations. For example...
 ado notation:
 removing some of the boilerplate needed to use Applicatives to validate data.
 do notation:
 using
IndexedMonad
based computations (i.e. monads with phantom types that provide more context about what can/can't happen at that computation step) in the same way we would useMonad
based computations.
 using
Presently, there are two ways to do this:
 Rebindable Do/Ado
 Qualified Do/Ado (available since the
0.12.2
release)
Each will be covered in the following folders. To keep it simple, we'll use the Box
monad to explain how it works. Unfortunately, this monadic type isn't a good example as to why one would want to use this.
01RebindableAdo.purs
module Syntax.Modification.RebindableAdo where
 I assume you are already familiar with how 'ado notation' desugars.
 If not, go read through that explanation again.
import Prelude
 We'll use a qualified import to make it easier to see
 when we're referring to the REAL 'apply' and 'map' as defined
 in Prelude and not our customized versions.
import Data.Functor as NormalMap
import Control.Apply as NormalApply
 Given this monad (type class instances are at bottom of file)
data Box a = Box a
{
"ado notation" works by
 desugaring the "<" notation via the "apply" function within scope
 desugaring the "in <function>" notation via the "map" function within scope
Thus, to change how these two things desugar, we change what 'apply' and 'map'
mean via a let binding or a where clause.
Note: rebinding 'ado' will produce the following compiler warnings:
"Name `apply` was shadowed."
"Name `map` was shadowed."
}
 This is how we would use "rebindable syntax" via a 'let binding'
 to write normal "ado notation" (i.e. apply and map are unchanged)
normalApply_let_in :: Box Int
normalApply_let_in =
let
{
These do not work
 Compiler error: "The value of apply is undefined here,
 so this reference is not allowed."
 The compiler thinks 'apply' is defined as itself.
apply :: forall f a b. Apply f => f (a > b) > f a > f b
apply = apply
}
 These do work.
 apply :: forall f a b. Apply f => f (a > b) > f a > f b
apply = NormalApply.apply
 map :: forall f a b. Functor f => (a > b) > f a > f b
map = NormalMap.map
in ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
 Redefining them in a 'where' clause is more readable.
normalApply_where :: Box Int
normalApply_where = ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
where
apply :: forall f a b. Apply f => f (a > b) > f a > f b
apply = NormalApply.apply
map :: forall f a b. Functor f => (a > b) > f a > f b
map = NormalMap.map
 Now, let's change how `<` gets desugared by actuallying changing how
 `apply` is defined. Whenever `apply` gets called, it will add 1
 to the result of apply by using `map (_ + 1)`.
plusApply_where :: Box Int
plusApply_where = ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
where
 Our modified 'apply' will add 1 each time it gets called.
 To support this modification, we'll modify the type signature
 to force this to only work on boxes of Ints.
apply :: forall f. Apply f => f (Int > Int) > f Int > f Int
apply boxedF boxedArg =
NormalMap.map (_ + 1) (NormalApply.apply boxedF boxedArg) {
^ Warning: if we used `apply` here instead of
`NormalApply.apply`, we would have
created an infinite loop }
 Since `map` isn't defined here, the closest "inscope" definition
 is the `map` that is imported from Data.Functor in the 'import Prelude'
 line.
{
Here's the graph reduction of the above `plus1Apply` code:
ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
((\three two > three + two)
`NormalMap.map` Box 3)
`apply` Box 2  i.e. our modified apply
(NormalMap.map (\three two > three + two) (Box 3)) `apply` Box 2
Box (\two > 3 + two) `apply` Box 2
apply (Box (\two > 3 + two)) (Box 2)
 now reduces 'apply' with our modified definition
 Note that "<*>" refers to the normal apply definition.
map (_ + 1) (NormalApply.apply (Box (\two > 3 + two)) (Box 2))
map (_ + 1) ( (Box (\2 > 3 + 2 )) )
map (_ + 1) ( (Box ( 5 )) )
map (_ + 1) (Box 5)
Box 6
}
 Applicative types allow us to use things like `*>` and `<*`
 Why not rebind ado notation to use that for apply?
realWorldExample :: Box Int
realWorldExample = ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
where
 Our modified `apply` will run the normal computation
 and then return the result, Box 4, rather than the actual computation.
 A better example would be using "ado notation" to validate
 data and use something like, `boxedF <*> boxedArg <* pure unit`,
 to reduce boilerplate.
apply :: forall f. Applicative f => f (Int > Int) > f Int > f Int
apply boxedF boxedArg = boxedF <*> boxedArg *> pure 4
{
The above graph reduction is:
ado
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
in three + two
(\three two > three + two)
`NormalMap.map` (Box 3)
`apply` (Box 2)
NormalMap.map (\three two > three + two) (Box 3) `apply` (Box 2)
Box (\two > 3 + two) `apply` (Box 2)
 here we use replace 'apply' with our modified definition
Box (\two > 3 + two) <*> (Box 2) *> Box 4
NormalApply.apply (Box (\two > 3 + two)) <*> (Box 2) *> Box 4
(Box (\ > 3 + 2 )) *> Box 4
(Box 5 ) *> Box 4
applyRight (Box 5) (Box 4)
applyRight (Box 5) (Box 4)
(\left right > right) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 4)
Box 4
}
 I don't have an example of remapping `map` because I couldn't find a way
 to do that without getting a compiler error.
 Still, this file demonstrates how to do this.
{
Lastly, one can change `apply` multiple times throughout the 'ado notation'
if one were to use lets. For example,
ado
 apply not set, so use normal definition
a < someA
let apply = definition  apply now uses modified version
b < someB
c < someC
let apply = definition2  apply now uses a second modified version
d < someD
in computation a b c d
For readability, this is not recommended. I only include it here to be
complete in this explanation.
}
 Type class instances
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a
instance (Show a) => Show (Box a) where
show (Box a) = "Box(" <> show a <> ")"
01RebindableDo.purs
module Syntax.Modification.RebindableDo where
 I assume you are already familiar with how 'do notation' desugars.
 If not, go read through that explanation again.
import Prelude
 We'll use a qualified import to make it easier to see
 when we're referring to the REAL 'bind` defined
 in Prelude and not our customized version.
import Control.Bind as NormalBind
 Given this monad (type class instances are at bottom of file)
data Box a = Box a
{
"do notation" works by
 desugaring a line with the "<" notation via the "bind" function within scope
 desugaring a line without the "<" notation via the "discard" function within scope
Thus, to change how these two things desugar, we change what 'bind' and 'discard'
mean via a let binding or a where clause.
However, since `discard = void $ bind`, we almost never need to remap `discard`
to a different definition. While one could, I don't know why one would.
Note: rebinding 'do' will produce the following compiler warnings:
"Name `bind` was shadowed."
"Name `discard` was shadowed."
}
 While 'bind' has been imported above, we don't have to use that 'bind' explicitly
normalBind_let_in :: Box Int
normalBind_let_in =
let
bind = NormalBind.bind
 this isn't necessary, but we'll include it here anyway.
discard = NormalBind.discard
in do
three < Box 3
Box unit
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
 Redefining them in a where clause is more readable.
normalBind_where :: Box Int
normalBind_where = do
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
where
bind = NormalBind.bind
 Again, this isn't necessary, but we'll include it here anyway.
discard = NormalBind.discard
 Similar to `ado notation`, we can rebind `do notation` to use a different
 implementation than the default `bind`.
plusBind_where :: Box Int
plusBind_where = do
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
where
bind boxedArg aToMB =
NormalBind.bind boxedArg aToMB >>= \result > pure (result + 1) {
^ Warning: using `bind` here would lead to an infinite loop during
runtime that will stack overflow. We need to refer to the normal
bind using `NormalBind.bind` or `>>=` }
 discard is not included here because the next closest discard definition
 in scope is the one imported via "import Prelude"
{
The above code's graph reduction is:
do
three < Box 3
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
bind (Box 3) (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\three >
pure (three + two)
)
)
let firstBindResult = NormalBind.bind (Box 3) (\x > pure (x + 1))
in NormalBind.bind firstBindResult (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\three >
pure (three + two)
)
)
let firstBindResult = (\3 > pure (3 + 1))
in NormalBind.bind firstBindResult (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\three >
pure (three + two)
)
)
let firstBindResult = ( pure 4 )
in NormalBind.bind firstBindResult (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\three >
pure (three + two)
)
)
let firstBindResult = Box 4
in NormalBind.bind firstBindResult (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\three >
pure (three + two)
)
)
NormalBind.bind (Box 4) (\three >
bind (Box 2) (\two >
pure (three + two)
)
)
(\4 >
bind (Box 2) (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
)
bind (Box 2) (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
let secondBindResult = NormalBind.bind (Box 2) (\y > pure (y + 1))
in NormalBind.bind secondBindResult (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
let secondBindResult = (\2 > pure (2 + 1))
in NormalBind.bind secondBindResult (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
let secondBindResult = ( pure 3 )
in NormalBind.bind secondBindResult (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
let secondBindResult = Box 3
in NormalBind.bind secondBindResult (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
NormalBind.bind (Box 3) (\two >
pure (4 + two)
)
(\3 >
pure (4 + 3)
)
pure (4 + 3)
Box 7
}
{
This example would require using a monad that supports MonadWriter.
One could rebind `bind` to log the argument before continuing the computation.
For example, someting like:
bind computation aToMB =
computation >>= (\result >
 log what the argument was here via `tell`
tell result >>= (\_ >
 then continue the computation like normal
aToMB result
)
}
 Type class instances
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Bind Box where
bind :: forall a b. Box a > (a > Box b) > Box b
bind (Box a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a
instance Monad Box
instance (Show a) => Show (Box a) where
show (Box a) = "Box(" <> show a <> ")"
Introducing Qualified Do/Ado
Possible Readability Issue with Rebindable Do/Ado Notation
When using Rebindable do/ado notation, I'd recommend using the let ... in do/ado
aproach for rebinding function names. Let me give an example why. If we used the 'where' clause approach, it isn't immediately clear whether do/ado notation
desugars to the standard functions or to some remapped version until the very end. For example,
 Reader thinks, "Oh hey! It's do notation.
 It's just standard `bind` desugaring."
comp3 :: Box Int
comp3 = do
a < Box 1
b < Box 1
c < Box 1
d < Box 1
e < Box 1
f < Box 1
g < Box 1
h < Box 1
i < Box 1
j < Box 1
k < Box 1
l < Box 1
m < Box 1
n < Box 1
o < Box 1
p < Box 1
q < Box 1
r < Box 1
pure 5
where
someValue = "some really long boilerplatey string..."
anotherComputation = case _ of
Just x > Right $ foldl ((:)) Nil x
Nothing > Left "Not sure what went wrong here..."
 Reader now thinks, "Oh crap. My understanding is completely off
 now that I know `bind` really means the below definition..."
bind =  my custom bind definition...
The above problem can be alleviated by bumping bind
to the top using a let binding.
 Reader thinks, "Oh hey! It's do notation.
 It's just standard `bind` desugaring."
comp3 :: Box Int
comp3 = do
 Reader thinks, "Oh wait. It's using a custom bind definition.
 I'll need to read through this next part carefully..."
let bind =  my custom bind definition...
in do
a < Box 1
b < Box 1
 the rest of the code in the example above...
Problems with Rebindable Do/Ado Notation
There are generally two problems with Rebindable do/ado notation.
First, each function that uses this feature must rebind do/ado notation to the correct definition. If one was building a library where each function used this, it would get very tedious.
For example,
comp1 :: Box Int
comp1 = let bind = NormalBind.bind in do
three < Box 3
Box unit
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
comp2 :: Box Int
comp2 = let bind = NormalBind.bind in do
three < Box 3
pure (three + two)
 ok, this is really getting tedious...
comp3 :: Box Int
comp3 = let bind = NormalBind.bind in do
three < Box 3
Box unit
two < Box 2
pure (three + two)
Second, rebindable do/ado notation might not be easily redable when running computations in various monadic contexts. For example
someComputation :: Box Int
someComputation = let bind = NormalBind.bind in do
 Box monadic context... use standard bind here
value1 < takesMonad1Argument (let bind = customBind in do
 Monad1 monadic context... use custom bind here
value2 < runMonad1Computation
takesMonad2Argument (let bind = NormalBind.bind in do
 Monad2 monadic context... use a different custom bind here...
value3 < runMonad2Computation)
pure (value3 + 5))
pure (value1 + 8)
As can be seen, "rebindable" do/ado notation is good when functions do not use many lines and one is not switching back and forth between monadic contexts.
Still, Qualified Do/Ado helps "solve" each of these problems. What follows is the requirements one needs to implement before this feature will work. In this example, we'll use a more complicated example: IndexedMonad/IxMonad.
12MonadLikeTypeClasses.purs
module Syntax.Modification.MonadLikeTypeClasses
( class IxFunctor, imap, map
, class IxApply, iapply, apply
, class IxApplicative, ipure, pure
, class IxBind, ibind, bind
, class IxMonad
, Box(..)
) where
import Data.Unit (Unit)
import Data.Show (class Show, show)
import Data.Semigroup ((<>))
 Given a data type with instances for the IndexedMonad type class
 hierarchy (type class instances are below each type class)
data Box :: forall k. k > k > Type > Type
data Box phantomInput phantomOutput storedValue = Box storedValue
instance (Show a) => Show (Box x x a) where
show (Box a) = "Box(" <> show a <> ")"
 Requirement 1: type classes that are similar to Functor to Monad hierarchy
  ado requirements: Functor, Apply, and Applicative
  do requirements: Functor, Apply, Applicative, Bind, and Monad
class IxFunctor :: forall k. (k > k > Type > Type) > Constraint
class IxFunctor f where
imap :: forall a b x. (a > b) > f x x a > f x x b
instance IxFunctor Box where
imap :: forall a b x. (a > b) > Box x x a > Box x x b
imap f (Box a) = Box (f a)
class IxApply :: forall k. (k > k > Type > Type) > Constraint
class (IxFunctor f) <= IxApply f where
iapply :: forall a b x y z. f x y (a > b) > f y z a > f x z b
instance IxApply Box where
iapply :: forall a b x y z. Box x y (a > b) > Box y z a > Box x z b
iapply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
class IxApplicative :: forall k. (k > k > Type > Type) > Constraint
class (IxApply f) <= IxApplicative f where
ipure :: forall a x. a > f x x a
instance IxApplicative Box where
ipure :: forall a x. a > Box x x a
ipure a = Box a
class IxBind :: forall k. (k > k > Type > Type) > Constraint
class (IxApply m) <= IxBind m where
ibind :: forall a b x y z. m x y a > (a > m y z b) > m x z b
instance IxBind Box where
ibind :: forall a b x y z. Box x y a > (a > Box y z b) > Box x z b
ibind (Box a) f =
 `f a` produces a value with the type, `Box y z b`, which is
 not the return type of this function, `Box x z b`.

 So, we can either `unsafeCoerce` the result of `f a` or just
 rewrap the 'b' value in a new Box. We've chosen to take the
 latter option here for simplicity.
case f a of Box b > Box b
class IxMonad :: forall k. (k > k > Type > Type) > Constraint
class (IxApplicative m, IxBind m) <= IxMonad m
instance IxMonad Box
 Requirement 2: define functions whose names correspond to the ones used
 in the regular type classes: `map`, `apply`, 'pure', 'bind', and
 'discard' (for when bind returns 'unit')
map :: forall f a b x. IxFunctor f => (a > b) > f x x a > f x x b
map = imap
apply :: forall f a b x y z. IxApply f => f x y (a > b) > f y z a > f x z b
apply = iapply
pure :: forall f a x. IxApplicative f => a > f x x a
pure = ipure
bind :: forall m a b x y z. IxBind m => m x y a > (a > m y z b) > m x z b
bind = ibind
discard :: forall a x y z m. IxBind m => m x y a > (a > m y z Unit) > m x z Unit
discard = ibind
13QualifiedDo.purs
module Syntax.Modification.QualifiedDo where
 we'll import Prelude so that the regular functions (e.g. "pure" "bind")
 are in scope to prove that they don't cause problems here.
import Prelude
 Requirement 3: import the module using a module alias, making it possible
 to use the same function names to refer to different "bind"like functions
import Syntax.Modification.MonadLikeTypeClasses as I
import Syntax.Modification.MonadLikeTypeClasses (Box)
 Requirement 4: When we want to use 'qualified do' syntax, we need to call
 the separate functions above and constrain the types to use IxMonad
doExample :: forall input. Box input input String
doExample = I.do  signifies that we're using the "bind" and "discard"
 functions defined in the "MonadLikeTypeClasses"
 module to desugar "<" and lines that lack it
 (i.e. discard)
a < I.pure "test1"  signifies that we're using the "pure" function
 defined in the "MonadLikeTypeClasses" module
b < I.pure "test2"
I.pure (a <> b)
14QualifiedAdo.purs
module Syntax.Modification.QualifiedAdo where
 we'll import Prelude so that the regular functions (e.g. "map" "apply")
 are in scope to prove that they don't cause problems here.
import Prelude
 Requirement 3: import the module using a module alias, making it possible
 to use the same function names to refer to different "apply"like functions
import Syntax.Modification.MonadLikeTypeClasses as I
import Syntax.Modification.MonadLikeTypeClasses (Box)
 Requirement 4: When we want to use 'qualified ado' syntax, we need to call the separate
 function above and constrain the types to use IxApplicative
adoExample :: forall x. Box x x String
adoExample = I.ado  signifies that we're using the "apply" and "map"
 functions defined in the "MonadLikeTypeClasses"
 module to desugar "<" and "in <function>"
 notation.
a < I.pure "test1"  signifies that we're using the "pure" function
 defined in the "MonadLikeTypeClasses" module
b < I.pure "test2"
in twoArgFunction a b
twoArgFunction :: String > String > String
twoArgFunction a b = a <> b
mixingAdosTogether :: String
mixingAdosTogether =
"""
I think "qualified ado" and "unqualified ado" can be mixed together,
but I don't know of any examples
"""
Hello World
This folder will document everything necessary to create a simple consolebased program in Purescript. It will explain:
 The philosophical foundations of FP programming
 The Prelude library (including Functor, Apply, Applicative, Bind, and Monad explanations)
 A simple "Hello World" program and other Effects
 Custom Compiler Warnings/Errors
 The difference between Local Mutable State vs Global Mutable State
 How to test code
 How to benchmark / profile code
 How to structure an FP application
 An overview of various typelevel programming libraries
 A few consolebased games written in Purescript (putting it all together)
While you may not be at the top of this Haskell Competency Matrix by the end of this repo, you will have taken a significant step towards that direction. This repo will not explain how to write algorithms in a performant way using an FP language. Consider reading Algorithm Design with Haskell which does teach algorithms using an FP language.
In pursuing these goals, it will overview the following libraries:
 Basic
 Prelude
 Prim.TypeError
 Effects
 Effect
 Console
 Random
 Aff
 State
 ST
 Refs
 Testing
 Spec
 Quick Check
 Quick Check Laws
 Benchmarking
 Benchotron
 Advanced
 Variant/VariantF
 MTL
 Free
 Run
 UIs
 Node ReadLine
 Halogen
Helpful Links
Other Learning Resources
Besides this repo, we have a few choices in terms of understanding functional programming. These are not necessarily "either X or Y or Z" choices but could be "X supplemented by Y with a little bit of Z")
Purescript
 The
Purescript By Example
book. (SeeROOT_FOLDER/Getting Started/Other Important Info.md
for links and clarifications around it)  Purescript Resources  Justin Woo's Read the Docs (RTD) work
JavaScript
Make the Leap from JavaScript to PureScript
Haskell
Since Purescript is heavily inspired by and very similar to Haskell, one can learn a lot about Purescript by learning from these Haskell learning resources. Note: the Haskell names and type classes do not always correspond to the Purescript versions.
Action  Pros  Cons 

Read the documentation and source code for a type class and a few data types' implementations of said type classes  Free  Takes a lot of time; requires intuition to understand type class' usefulness / relation to others. 
Read through the articles on or pay for training from FP Complete's opinionated Haskell website  Free / Paid  (Haven't done it so I don't know) 
Read through the intermediatelevel Haskell articles in the Applied Haskell 2018 GitHub Repo  Free  (Haven't done it so I don't know) 
Read through some of the free course materials taught by someone well informed about Haskell here (you'll need to scroll towards the bottom)  Free; more principled explanations  Looking at just slides without hearing someone teach using them is not usually as clear as when someone does teach using them or reading through a textbook on the same matter. 
Read through the extremely lengthy "What I wish I knew when learning Haskell" site  Free; provides a better overview of basic to advanced topics  Very long; not necessarily deep and clear in its explanations 
Read and do the exercises from The Haskell Book  The "standard" for teaching Haskell and FP concepts in general: good explanations; good exercises; teaches "programming in the small"  Costs money; costs time; the exercises will stretch you 
Read and do the exercises from Haskell Cookbook, and then its follow up book Haskell Cookbook 2  Free/Cheap; simpler than the Haskell book; gets to ideas faster; teaches "programming in the large"  May be harder for a new beginner (I haven't read it yet) 
Watch the Intro to FP course on edX.org here  Free (or paid)  (Haven't done it so I don't know) 
Read the relevant chapters from Learn You a Haskell for Great Good  Free  I read elsewhere that it's "outdated". See this Reddit comment's warning about learning from LYAHH 
Miscellaneous Links
Preludeish
This folder will cover three things:
 Basic data types
 The
Prelude
library  Two additional type classes: Foldable and Traversable
Sum and Product Types
There are generally two data types in FP languages. These are otherwise known as Algebraic Data Types (ADTs):
 Sum types (corresponds to addition)
 Product types (corresponds to multiplication)
These are better explained in this video as to how they get their names.
The simplest form of them are Either
and Tuple
 sum
data Either a b  a value of htis type is an `a` value OR a `b` value
= Left a
 Right b
 product  a value of htis type is an `a` value AND a `b` value
data Tuple a b
= Tuple a b
 both  a value of this type is one of the following:
data These a b
= This a   an `a` value
 That b   a `b` value
 Both a b   an `a` value AND a `b` value
 For example, These could be rewritten to
 use a combination of Either and Tuple:
type These_ a b = Either a (Either b (Tuple a b))
However, these types can also be 'open' or 'closed':
Sum  Product  Sum and Product  

Closed  Either a b Variant (a :: A, b :: B)  Tuple a b Record (a :: A, b :: B) (e.g. { a :: A, b :: B }  These a b 
Open  Variant (a :: A  allOtherRows)  Record (a :: A  allOtherRows) (e.g. { a :: b  allOtherRows } )   
What does 'Open' mean?
Using this example from the Syntax folder...
 the 'r' means, 'all other fields in the record'
function :: forall r. { fst :: String, snd :: String  r } > String
function record = record.fst <> record.snd
 so calling the function with both record arguments below works
function { fst: "hello", snd: "world" }
function { fst: "hello", snd: "world", unrelatedField: 0 }  works!
 If this function used Tuple instead of Record,
 the first argument would work, but not the second one.
Here's another way to think about this:
Record
s are 'nestedTuple
s'Variant
s are 'nestedEither
s'
 We could write
Tuple a (Tuple b (Tuple c (Tuple d e)))
 or we could write
{ a :: A, b :: B, c :: C, d :: D, e :: E }
 which desugars to
Record ( a :: A, b :: B, c :: C, d :: D, e :: E )
 We could write
Either a (Either b (Either c (Either d e)))
 or we could write
Variant ( a :: A, b :: B, c :: C, d :: D, e :: E)
Keep in mind that records/variants can be but do not necessarily have to be open. If we changed the above function's type signature to remove the r
, it would restrict its arguments to a closed Record:
closed :: { fst :: String, snd :: String } > String
closed record = record.fst <> record.snd
closed { fst: "hello", snd: "world" }  compiles
closed { fst: "hello", snd: "world", unrelatedField: 0 }  compiler error
The Types
Tuple
data Tuple a b = Tuple a b
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescripttuples  Tuple a b  2value Box 
Usage  Values & their Usage 

Stores two ordered unnamed values of the same/different types. Can be used to return or pass in multiple unnamed values from or into a function.  Tuple a b 
Record
forall r. { a :: A, b :: B, { ... }  r }  open record
{ a :: A, b :: B, { ... } }  closed record
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

prim  { field :: ValueType }  an Nvalue Box 
Usage  Values & their Usage 

Stores N ordered named values of the same/different types. Can be used to return or pass in multiple unnamed values from or into a function.  { field :: ValueType } 
Either
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescripteither  Either a b  Choice of 2 types 
Usage  Values & their Usage 

Used to indicate one type or a second type 

Error handing (when we care about the error) 

Maybe
data Maybe a
= Nothing
 Just a
Maybe a
is the same as Either unimportantType a
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescriptmaybe  Maybe a  A full or empty box 
Usage  Values' Representation 

Indicates an optional value 

Used for errorhandling when we don't care about the error (replaces null ) 

Variant
This is an advanced type that will be covered in the Hello World/Application Structure
folder.
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescriptvariant  Variant (a :: A, b :: B)  Choice of N types 
Usage  Values & their Usage 

Used to indicate one type among many types  See docs 
These
data These a b
= This a  Left a
 That b  Right b
 Both a b  Tuple a b
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescriptthese  These a b  Same as Either a (Either b (Tuple a b)) 
Concluding Thoughts
Performancewise, it's generally better to use Record
instead of Tuple
, and it's definitely better to use Record
instead of a nested Tuple
.
Similarly, it's better to use Variant
instead of a nested Either
. However, sometimes Either
is all one needs and Variant
is overkill.
For people new to the language and algebraic data types (ADTs) in general, stick with Tuple
, Either
, and closed Record
s.
List
List
is what FP programmers typically use to store a sequence of values because it is friendly to recursion. Array
is what most mainstream languages use. Due to JavaScript's strict runtime (as opposed to Haskell's lazy runtime), most PureScript developers will use Array
instead of List
. However, explaining some FP concepts are easier to do using List
rather than Array
.
Understand the upcoming definition using this diagram:
List
/ \
head tail
/ \
head tail
\
....
/ \
head Nil
 Data.List.Types
data List a
= Nil
 Cons a (List a)
infixr 6 Cons as :
 example
1 : 2 : Nil  Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil)  [1, 2]
Package  Type name  "Plain English" name 

purescriptlist  List a  Immutable strict singlylinked list 
Usage  Values & their Usage 

Recursivefriendly, notbestperformant list type 

Useful Types
The following is not an exact copy of the code, but accurate enough to get the idea across
Void
A type with no values that is useful for proving that a type can never exist or a computation path can never occur
 Data.Void (Void, absurd)
newtype Void = Void Void
 needed when one needs to refer to void
absurd :: forall a. Void > a
 for example...
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
 if this function compiles, it asserts that
 only the `Right i` path is ever taken
function :: Either Void Int > Int
function Left v = absurd v
function Right i = i
Unit
A type with 1 value, Unit, though most will see it used via unit
. It usually indicates a "side effect", mutation, or impure code.
 Data.Unit (Unit, unit)
data Unit = Unit
unit :: Unit
unit = Unit
It's also used to indicate a thunk
, a computation that we know how to do but have chosen to delay executing/evaluating until later:
type ComputationThatReturns a = (Unit > a)
thunk :: forall a. a > ComputationThatReturns a
thunk a = (\_ > a)
 We run the pending computation (force the thunk) by passing
 unit to it:
runPendingComputation :: ComputationThatReturns a > a
runPendingComputation thunk = thunk unit
Natural Transformations
Takes an a
out of some Box
like type and puts it into another Box
like type
 Data.NaturalTransformation (NaturalTransformation, (~>))
 Given this code
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
 This function's type signature...
box1_to_box2 :: forall a. Box1 a > Box2 a
box1_to_box2 (Box1 a) = Box2 a
 ... has a lot of noise and could be rewritten to something
 that communicates our intent better via Natural Transformations...
 Read: change the container F to container G.
 I don't care what type 'a' is since it's irrelevant
type NaturalTransformation f g = forall a. f a > g a
infixr 4 NaturalTransformation as ~>
box1_to_box2 :: Box1 ~> Box2 { much less noisy than
box1_to_box2 :: forall a. Box1 a > Box2 a }
box1_to_box2 (Box1 a) = Box2 a
Useful Functions
These all come from Data.Function
in Prelude.
Const
const :: forall a b. a > b > a
const x _ = x
 Example
const 1 "hello" = 1
const 1 true = 1
const 1 42 = 1
Flip
 Flip the argument order
flip :: forall a b c. (a > b > c) > b > a > c
flip twoArgFunction secondArg firstArg = twoArgFunction firstArg secondArg
 example
(append "world!" "Hello ") == "world!Hello "
(flip append "world!" "Hello ") == "Hello world!"
Apply
Forewarning: apply
via $
shows up EVERYWHERE! Bookmark this until you get it.
I read somewhere (I think @garyb
mentioned this in the PureScript chatroom) that $
was chosen because it's two parenthesis with a line through it, symbolizing that it removes the need to use parenthesis.
 Reduce the number of parenthesis needed
apply :: (a > b) > a > b
apply function arg = function arg
infix 0 apply as $
 example
print (5 + 5) == print $ 5 + 5
print (append "foo" (4 + 4)) == print $ append "foo" $ 4 + 4
Other LessUsed Functions
 apply with its arguments flipped
applyFlipped :: forall a b. a > (a > b) > b
applyFlipped = flip apply
infxl 1 applyFlipped as #
 example
print (5 + 5) == 5 + 5 # print
 apply a function with the given arg totalTimes
applyN :: forall a. (a > a) > Int > a > a
applyN function totalTimes arg =  implementation
 no infix
 Example
applyN (+) 2 2  reduces to...
2 + (applyN (+) 1 2)  reduces to...
2 + 2
 When the desired function takes b, but you have 'a'.
 So, we change 'a' to 'b' and then call the function
on :: forall a b c. (b > b > c) > (a > b) > a > a > c
on function changeAToB a1 a2 = function (changeAToB a1) (changeAToB a2)
 Example
on (+) stringToInt "4" "5" == 9
Prelude's Type Classes
Relationships
Below is a dependency graph / type class categorization of the type classes found in Prelude. The usage frequency key is my current understanding and may be inaccurate for the "somewhat"/"rare" type classes:
Tricks for Implementing a Type Class Instance
Keep in mind that when implementing a type class, one does not always need to implement its function with a specific implementation for a given type. There are two situations in which this can occur:
First, this situation can arise when a type class defines two or more functions. Sometimes, a function in a type class can be defined using another function from that same type class. Take, for example, the Eq
type class:
class Eq a where
eq :: a > a > Boolean
notEq :: a > a > Boolean
Granted, an Eq
instance can be derived by the compiler. However, assuming this wasn't the case, there are two ways we could implement it:
 We could implement only
eq
and implementnotEq
by invertingeq
's result.  We could implement only
notEq
and implementeq
by invertingnotEq
's result
Second, sometimes, a function in a type class can be defined using a function from a required type class. Take, for example, the Ord
type class:
data Ordering
= LT
 EQ
 GT
class (Eq a) <= Ord a where
compare :: a > a > Ordering
If we implement compare
, we can also implement eq
:
data ColoredBox
= RedBox
 GreenBox
instance Ord ColoredBox where
compare RedBox GreenBox = LT
compare GreenBox RedBox = GT
compare _ _ = EQ { which expands to...
compare RedBox RedBox = EQ
compare GreenBox GreenBox = EQ
}
instance Eq ColoredBox where
eq a b = (compare a b) == EQ
notEq a b = (compare a b) /= EQ
Laws
This is a cheatsheet for various terms used to describe laws. Not all of these will appear in Prelude and some may be explained in a type class' definition. Still, it helps to be aware of them:
Law  Definition  Example  Explanation of example 

reflexive  x function x == true  x <= y  a <= a is true for any number a you pick 
irreflexive  x function x == false  x < y  a < a is false for any number a you pick 
coreflexive  if (x function y) then (x == y)  (x <= 15) && (x == y)  given (a <= 15) && (a == b) , then a == b (the converse is not true, though!) 
symmetric  if (x function y) then (y function x)  x == y  given a == b , then b == a 
antisymmetric  if (x function y && y function x) then (x == y)  x <= y  given a <= b && b <= a , then a == b 
asymmetric  if (x function y) then (y function x == false)  x < y  given a < b , then !(b < a) (asymmetric = antisymmetric + irreflexive) 
transitive  if (x function y && y function z) then (x function z)  x == y , x <= y  given a == b && b == c , then a == c given a <= b && b <= c , then a <= c 
Objecty
In Java, every object has 3 functions:
 toString
 equals
 hashCode
However, some types do not need these functions (e.g. singletons, lambda functions, etc.). Furthermore, equals
should only work between objects of the same type (i.e. 4 == "4"
shouldn't compile).
In PureScript, we can only determine whether a value of type A
is equal to another value of type A
if it has an Eq
instance. Similarly, values of a given type can only be "ordered" if the type has an instance of the Ord
type class.
Whether a type implements a type class or not restricts or increases what one can do with it.
Show, Eq, Ord, Bounded
Since the documentation for these type classes are clear, we will redirect you to them instead of repeating them here:
 Show converts a value into a String. Unfortunately, people out of convenience use it for multiple purposes. See
hdgarrood
's Down With Show 3part series as to why he thinks we should replaceShow
with something that better suits the purposes for which it is normally used.  Eq determines whether two values of the same type are equal. In this way, it avoids the problem that Java has above.
 Ordering is a data type for specifying whether something is less than (LT), equal to (EQ), or greater than (GT) something else. Ord takes two values of type,
a
, and returns an Ordering. Ord usestotal ordering
. There are a different kinds of ordering that require a different number and type of laws: Preorder: reflexive and transitive laws
 Parital order: reflexive, transitive, and antisymmetric
 Total order: reflexive, transitive, antisymmetric, and total (e.g. it can order every value of a given type)
 Bounded just adds an upper and lower bound to Ord.
Useful Derived Functions
Most of these come from Ord
:
 min/max  selfexplanatory
 clamp 
clamp lowerBound upperBound value
 between 
between lowerBound upperBound value
Arrows
We'll explain this idea before Control Flow
related type classes so that you understand a notation we'll use in them.
Cleaner Function Notation
Let's say I have two functions:
(\x > x + 1)
(\y > y * 10)
If we want to apply an argument to the first and pass its output into the second, we would have to write something uglylooking:
(\x > (\y > y * 10) (x + 1) )
What we mean is something like this
f = (\x > x + 1)
g = (\y > y * 10)
expression = (\arg > g (f arg))
We have just defined function composition, which can be written in such a way to reduce "noise:"
 The arrow determines where the output goes
(\a > g (f a)) == (g <<< f)
(\a > g (f a)) == (f >>> g)
Moreover, sometimes we want a function that returns the input:
(\x > x)
 so that we can use it like...
(\x > x) 4 == 4
We call this function, identity
:
(\x > x) == identity
 same thing
identity 4 == 4
Generalizing to More Types
To summarize...
Name  Meaning  Shortcut 

compose  (\a > g (f a))  (g <<< f) 
composeFlipped  (\a > g (f a))  (f >>> g) 
identity  (\x > x) a  identity a 
If we were to turn compose
into a function, it would appear with the type signature below:
compose :: forall a b c. (b > c) > (a > b) > (a > c)
 However, ">" is just sugar syntax for Function:
compose :: forall a b c. Function b c > Function a c > Function a c
 Notice that Function appears to be just another data structure.
 If it works for that data structure, why not generalize it for any data structure?
compose :: forall f a b c. f b c > f a b > f a c
 Let's rename our generics, so that it starts with `a` rather than `f`:
compose :: forall a b c d. a c d > a b c > a b d
 We'll line up the types for easier reading:
compose :: forall a b c. (b > c) > (a > b) > (a > c)
compose :: forall a b c. Function b c > Function a b > Function a c
compose :: forall f a b c. f b c > f a b > f a c
compose :: forall a b c d. a c d > a b c > a b d
 We've now just defined the function `compose` for Semigroupoid:
class Semigroupoid a where
compose :: forall b c d. a c d > a b c > a b d
 Doing the same for identity is trivial:
identity :: forall a. a > a
identity :: forall a. Function a a
identity :: forall f a. f a a
identity :: forall a b. a b b
class (Semigroupoid a) <= Category a where
 we'll use 't' instead of 'b'
identity :: forall t. a t t
Here's the docs. You likely won't be using these that often (unless perhaps you're designing a library), but it's good to know of them:
 Semigroupoid generalizes compose
 Category generalizes identity
You will see g <<< g
or its flipped version g >>> f
a lot and we'll use it in the upcoming files.
Appendable: Semigroup to Monoid
This file will only cover the first two type classes in the type class hierarchy. The rest will be covered later.
These type classes often take two values of a given type and 'append' them into one new value. One could also think of this as 'reducing' two values into one value.
Semigroup
class Semigroup a where
append :: a > a > a
infixr 5 append as <>
Examples
One example is String
. Two String values can be 'appended/reduced' into one value by concatenating them together: append "hello " "world" == "hello world"
.
Another example is Boolean
(although its functions are not defined in this way as there is a better type class for them). Two Boolean values can be 'appended/reduced' into one value via the usual suspects:
true && true == true
false  true == true
A third example is Int
, which has two possible instances for 'appending/reducing' two values into one value. How? One could
 add them:
1 + 1
 multiple them:
2 * 2
A fourth is List
. One can take two values of List
and combine them together by putting both lists' elements into one new list.
Monoid
class Semigroup a <= Monoid a where
mempty :: a
mempty
is the "identity" value. In other words mempty <> a == a
and a <> mempty == a
. In some contexts, mempty
acts like a "default value."
The name, mempty
, is used rather than empty
because empty
is the name of a function that a different but similar type class called Plus
defines. We won't cover Plus
here.
Using the same examples above,
Type  mempty value  Example 1  Example 2 

String  ""  "foo" <> "" == "foo"  "" <> "foo" == "foo" 
Boolean (and)  true  x && true == x  true && x == x 
Boolean (or)  false  x `  
Int (plus)  0  x <> 0 == x  0 <> x == x 
Int (multiply)  1  x <> 0 == x  1 <> x == x 
List  Nil  x <> Nil == X  Nil <> x == x 
Docs
Some of these type classes also specify specific helper types (sub bullets under a type class) that serve to reduce boilerplate:
 Semigroup.
 Monoid
 When one wants to use
Semiring
'sadd
/+
andzero
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Additive.  When one wants to use
Semiring
'smul
/*
andone
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Multiplicative  When one wants to use
HeytingAlgebra
'sconj
/&&
andtt
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Conj  When one wants to use
HeytingAlgebra
'sdisj
/
andff
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Disj  When one wants to use
Category
'scompose
/<<<
andidentity
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Endo  When one wants to use
Category
'scomposeFlipped
/>>>
andidentity
as the meaning of<>
andmempty
, one can use Dual
 When one wants to use
For derived functions (if any), see the type classes' docs.
Overview
There are type classes that control the flow of the program (e.g. whether the program should do X and then Y or should do X and Y at the same time).
Functor, Apply, and Bind Type Classes Explained in Pictures
We've linked to an article below that explains these abstract notions in a clear manner using pictures and the Maybe a
data structure. However, since these concepts are explained in Haskell, which uses different terminology than Purescript, use the following table to map
Haskell terminology to Purescript terminology:
Haskell Terminology  Purescript Terminology 

fmap (function)  map (function) 
Applicative (type class)  Apply (type class) 
Array /[] (syntax sugar for List a )  List a 
map (Array function)  see the implementation in Purescript 
IO ()  Effect Unit , which will be explained/used in a later part of this folder 
Here's the link: Functors, Applicatives, and Monads in Pictures
Lists' Map Function in Purescript
Here's the map
List function implemented in Purescript:
data List a = Nil  Cons a (List a)
instance Functor List where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > List a > List b
map f Nil = Nil
map f (Cons head tail) = Cons (f head) (map f tail)
Functor, Apply, Applicative, Bind, Monad
In Short
Concept  Argument is NOT inside a Box / context  Argument is inside a Box / context  Name 

1arg function application  function arg  function <$> (Box arg)  Functor 
2+arg function application  function arg1 arg2  function <$> (Box arg1) <*> (Box arg2)  Applicative 
function composition  aToB >>> bToC  aToBoxB >=> bToBoxC  Monad 
Somewhat longer
These will be covered at a slower and clearer pace in the upcoming files. This is just an overview of them.
Typeclass  "Plain English"  Function  Infix  Laws  Usage 

Functor  Mappable  map :: forall a b. (a > b) > f a > f b  <$> (Left 4) 
 Change a value, a , that's currently stored in some boxlike type, f , using a function, (a > b) 
Apply  Boxed Mappable  apply :: forall a b. f (a > b) > f a > f b  <*> (Left 4) 
 Same as Functor except the function is now inside of the same boxlike type. 
Applicative  Liftable Parallel Computation  pure :: forall a. a > f a 
 Put a value into a box Run code in parallel  
Bind  Sequential Computation  bind :: forall m a b. m a > (a > m b) > m b  >>= (Left 1)  Associativity: (x >>= f) >>= g == x >>= (\x' > f x' >>= g)  Given an value of a boxlike type, m , that contains a value, a , extract the a from m , and create a new m value that stores a new value, b . Take m a and compute it via bind />>= to produce a value, a . Then, use a to describe (but not run) a new computation, m b . When m b is computed (via a later bind />>= ), it will return b . 
Monad  FP Program 
 The data structure used to run FP programs by executing code linebyline, functionbyfunction, etc. 
Simplest Monad Implementation
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Bind Box where
bind (Box a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box where
pure a = Box a
instance Monad Box
Function Reduction
In these files, we will "evaluate" functions by using graph reductions: replacing the lefthand side (LHS) of the =
sign (the function's call signature) with the righthand side (RHS) of the =
sign (the function's implementation / body). In other words...
someFunction arg1 arg2 arg3 = bodyOfFunction
 call signature (LHS)  =  body (RHS) 
Functor: Mappable
Usage
Change a value, `a`,
that's currently stored in some boxlike type, `f`,
into `b`
using a function, `(a > b)`.
Definition
See its docs: Functor
class Functor f where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > f a > f b
infixl 4 map as <$>
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
Put differently, Functor
solves a specific problem. If I have a function of type (a > b)
, I cannot use that function on values of a
if they are stored in a boxlike type:
function :: Int > String
function 0 = "0"
function _ = "1"
function 5  This works!
function (Box 5)  compiler error! Oh noes!
One could also see map
as "transforming" a function, so that it also operates on Boxlike types. This is often described as "lifting" a function into a Boxlike type:
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > (Box a > Box b)
map f = (\(Box a) > Box (f b))
Laws
Identity
Definition: (\x > x) <$> fa == fa
 Start!
(\a > a) <$> (Box 4)
 Deinfix "<$>" to map
map (\a > a) (Box 4)
 Replace map's "call signature" with its "body"
Box ((\a > a) 4)
 Apply argument by replacing '\a' with its argument '4'
Box ((\4 > 4) )
 Keep only the body of function
Box (( 4) )
 Remove parenthesis and whitespace
Box 4
 Check whether lefthand side (LHS) equals righthand side (RHS)
(Box 4) == (Box 4)
 Law met!
true
Composition
(Remember, g <<< f
means (\a > g (f a))
)
Definition: map (g <<< f) = (map g) <<< (map f)
 # Reduce left side of the law #
 Start!
map ((\y > y * 10) <<< (\x > x + 1)) (Box 4)
 Remember that `f <<< g` means `(\a > f (g a))`
 Reduce the "<<<" into one function
map (\x > 10 * (x + 1)) (Box 4)
 Replace map's "call signature" with its "body"
Box ((\x > 10 * (x + 1)) 4)
 Apply argument by replacing '\x' with its argument '4'
Box ((\4 > 10 * (4 + 1)) )
 Keep only the body of function
Box (( 10 * (4 + 1)) )
 Reduce the body of function to its end result:
Box (( 10 * (5 )) )
Box (( 10 * 5 ) )
Box (( 50 ) )
 Remove parenthesis and whitespace
Box 50
 # Reduce right side of the law #
 Start!
(map (\y > y * 10)) <<< (map (\x > x + 1)) (Box 4)
 Reduce "<<<" into one function
(\box4 > map (\y > y * 10) ( map (\x > x + 1) box4 ) ) (Box4)
 Apply argument
(\(Box 4) > map (\y > y * 10) ( map (\x > x + 1) (Box 4)) )
 Keep only the body of function
( map (\y > y * 10) ( map (\x > x + 1) (Box 4)) )
 Replace 2nd map "call signature" with its "body"
( map (\y > y * 10) ( Box (\x > x + 1) 4) )
 Apply the argument
( map (\y > y * 10) ( Box (\4 > 4 + 1) ) )
 Keep only the body of the function
( map (\y > y * 10) ( Box ( 4 + 1) ) )
 Calculate the function
( map (\y > y * 10) ( Box ( 5 ) ) )
 Remove unneeded parenthesis
( map (\y > y * 10) Box 5 )
 Remove unneeded whitespace
( map (\y > y * 10) Box 5 )
 Replace map's "call signature" with its "body"
( Box ((\y > y * 10) 5) )
 Apply the argument
( Box ((\5 > 5 * 10) ) )
 Keep only the function
( Box (( 5 * 10) ) )
 Calculate the function
( Box (( 50 ) ) )
 Remove unneeded parenthesis
Box 50
 Shift everything left
Box 50
 Test if LHS equals RHS
(Box 50) == (Box 50)
 Law met!
true
Derived Functions
See the docs above for their definitions and read through the source code:
 Ignore the
a
value and just replace it with the value towards which the arrow points...
 (
voidLeft
/$>
):(Box 4) $> "a" == (Box "a")
 (
voidRight
/<$
):"a" <$ (Box 4) == (Box "a")
 (
Unit
(void
):void (Box 4) == (Box unit)
 Note:
void
is used heavily to make it work with theDiscard
type class indo
notation.
 Note:
 the value towards which the arrow points...
 Flip the order of map's arguments (
mapFlipped
/<#>
)  Generalize
flip
, so that it works for all types (flap
/<@>
)
Apply
Usage
Shorter: Same as Functor
, but the function is also in the boxlike type, f
.
Longer:
Change a value, `a`,
that's currently stored in some boxlike type, `f`,
into `b`
using a function, `(a > b)`,
that is also stored in the same boxlike type, `f`.
Definition
See its docs: Apply
class (Functor f) <= Apply f where
apply :: forall a b. f (a > b) > f a > f b
infixl 4 apply as <*>
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f ) (Box a) = Box (f a)
Put differently, Apply
solves a problem that occurs when using Functor
. If I have a function of type (a > b > c)
, I can use Functor
's map
/<$>
to lift that function into a Boxlike type as before....
mapResult :: Box (Int > Int)
mapResult = map (\first second > first + second) (Box 1)
However, the resulting value stored in that Boxlike type is a function. In other words, mapResult == Box (\second > 1 + second)
. Functor
's map
only works if the function takes only one argument. If it takes 2+ arguments, map
will return a function stored in a Box
.
This is where Apply
comes to the rescue. We can continue to apply boxed arguments to that function until we eventually get a Box with a value in it:
finalResult :: Box Int
finalResult =
apply mapResult (Box 2) {
...which is the same as...
Box ((\second > 1 + second) 2)
Box ((\2 > 1 + 2 ) )
Box (( 3 ) )
Box 3 }
Thus, map
lifts functions that take n
many arguments into a Boxlike type, and Apply
's apply
/<*>
continues to pass n1
many boxed arguments into that function until the function executes.
Laws
Associative Composition
Definition: (<<<) <$> f <*> g <*> h == f <*> (g <*> h)
TODO: prove the above law using Box
(a lot of work, so ignoring for now...)
Derived Functions
 Do two computations, but only return...
 the first:
applyFirst
/<*
 the second:
applySecond
/*>
 the first:
liftN
is explained below:
LiftN Notation
Let's rename that Functor
's map
function to lift1
:
{
map (\oneArg > doStuffWith oneArg) (Box 4) }
lift1 (\oneArg > doStuffWith oneArg) (Box 4)
This function can only take one arg. What if want to take two args? We should call it lift2
:
lift2 (\arg1 arg2 > andThen (doStuffWith arg1) arg2) (Box 4) (Box 4)
That works, but we could also write it:
(\arg1 arg2 > andThen (doStuffWith arg1) arg2) <$> (Box 4) <*> (Box 4)
Using metalanguage
function_NotInBox_takes_n_args <$> boxedArg1 <*> boxedArg2  <*> boxedArgN ...
Applicative
Usage
 Lift any value/function/etc. into a boxlike type,
f
 Parallel Computation: Do all three simultaneously: X, Y, and Z.
(Note: Javascript is currently singlethreaded, so this isn't entirely true. If it gets multithread support, that will change.)
Definition
See its docs: Applicative
class (Apply f) <= Applicative f where
pure :: forall a. a > f a
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f ) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a
Laws
Identity
Definition: (pure (\x > x) <*> v == v)
 Start: 'v' == (Box 4)
(pure (\x > x)) <*> (Box 4)
 Replace pure call signature with body
( Box (\x > x)) <*> (Box 4)
 Deinfix <*> to apply
apply (Box (\x > x)) (Box 4)
 Replace apply call signature with body
Box (\x > x) 4)
 Apply argument by replacing all 'x' with '4'
Box (\4 > 4) )
 Keep body of function
Box ( 4) )
 Remove whitespace and parenthesis
Box 4
 Check law
(Box 4) == (Box 4)
 Law met!
true
Composition
Definition: pure (<<<) <*> f <*> g <*> h == f <*> (g <*> h)
TODO: prove the above law using Box
(a lot of work, so ignoring for now...)
Homomorphism
Definition: (pure f) <*> (pure x) == pure (f x)
TODO: prove the above law using Box
(a lot of work, so ignoring for now...)
Interchange
Definition: u <*> (pure y) == (pure (_ $ y)) <*> u
TODO: prove the above law using Box
(a lot of work, so ignoring for now...)
Derived Functions
 Define an instance of
Apply
andApplicative
and you get aFunctor
implementation for free!:liftA1
 Do a computation...
 if some condition is true:
when
 if some condition is false:
unless
 if some condition is true:
Note: when
/unless
is strict. For a lazy version, see purescriptcallbyname
Bind
Usage
Short:
 Sequential Computation: do X, and once finished do Y, and once finished do Z
Long:
 Given a value,
a
, that is stored in a boxlike type,m
 Extract the
a
from the box,m
 Pass it into a function,
(a > m b)
 The function uses the value
a
to compute a new value,b
.  The function wraps the new value
b
into the same boxlike type,m
.  The function returns a box,
m
, that stores the new value,b
.
 The function uses the value
 Refer to the
b
value asa
and repeatSteps 13
until we run out of functions  The last function returns the final
b
value that is stored in the same boxlike type,m
.
Definition
See its docs: Bind
Below, we'll show two instances for Bind
:
 A flipped version of bind that shows how it relates to
Functor
andApply
 The correct version:
 in real definition, 'f' (functor) is really 'm' (monad)
class (Appy f) <= Bind f where
bind :: forall a b. f a > (a > f b) > f b
infixl 1 bind as >>=
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f ) (Box a) = Box (f a)
 Wrong: Flipped order of two args!
instance Bind_ Box where
bindFlipped :: forall a b. (a > Box b) > Box a > Box b
bindFlipped f (Box a) = f a
 Correct order of args
instance Bind Box where
bind :: forall a b. Box a > (a > Box b) > Box b
bind (Box a) f = f a
bind
's type signature is weird. How did we ever come up with that? To understand it (and understand why we have the below 'derived functions'), watch Category Theory 10.1: Monads and refer to the code below for help in understanding it:
 >=> the "fish operator" is
 called "composeKleisli"
infix composeKleisli 6 >=>
 see "(a > m b)" as the definition
 of `pure` from the `Applicative` type class.
composeKleisli :: forall m a b c. Functor f => (a > m b) > (b > m c) > (a > m c)
composeKleisli f g =
\a >
let mb = f a
in (bind mb g)
where
bind :: m b > (b > m c) > m c
bind functor function = join (map function functor)
join :: m (m a) > m a
join =  implementation
Laws
Associativity
(This law enables "do notation", which we'll explain soon.)
Definition: (x >>= f) >>= g == x >>= (\x' > f x' >>= g)
TODO: prove the above law using Box
(a lot of work, so ignoring for now...)
Derived Functions
 If you have nested boxes and need to remove the outer one (
join
):join (Box (Box a)) == Box a
 Make chained multiple
aToMB
functions easier to read... going forwards (
composeKleisli
/>=>
):ma >=> aToMB >=> bToMC >=> ...
 going backwards (
composeKleisliFlipped
/<=<
):... <=< bToMC <=< aToMB <=< ma
 going forwards (
if computeCondition then truePathComputation else falsePathComputation
(ifM
) If you want
bind
/>>=
to go in the opposite direction (bindFlipped
/=<<
):ma >>= aToMB == aToMB =<< ma
Monad
Usage
Monad = Sequential Computation (Bind
) + Lift a Value/Function into Boxlike Type (Applicative
)
Definition
See its docs: Monad
class (Applicative m, Bind m) <= Monad m
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Bind Box where
bind :: forall a b. Box a > (a > Box b) > Box b
bind (Box a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a
instance Monad Box
Laws
Unofficial
Taken from this slide in this YouTube video, here's an "unofficial" but clearer way to understand the laws for Monad by comparing them to a Function:
 Recall: `identity a == (\x > x) a`
 Given a function whose type signature is...
(>=>) :: Monad m => (a > m b) > (b > m c) > a > m c
(aToMB >=> bToMC) a = (aToMB a) >>= (\b > bToMC b)
 ... Monad could be defined by these laws:
 1a. Function's identity law
(function >>> identity) a == function a
aToMB >=> pure == aToMB
 1b. its inverse
(identity >>> f) a == f a
pure >=> f == f
 2. Function Composition
f >>> (g >>> h) == (f >>> g) >>> h
f >=> (g >=> h) == (f >=> g) >=> h
Official
Identity
Definition (left) : pure x >>= f = f x
 start
pure x >>= f
 replace call signature with body
(Box x) >>= f
 deinfix `>>=` to `bind`
bind (Box x) f
 replace call signature with body
f x
 check LHS with RHS
f x == f x
 Law met!
true
Definition (right): x >>= pure = x
Applicative Superclass
Definition: apply = ap
(where ap
is a derived function)
Derived Functions
 Define an instance of
Applicative
,Bind
, andMonad
and... you get a
Functor
implementation for free!:liftM1
 you get an
Apply
implementation for free!:ap
 you get a
 Do a computation...
 if some condition is true:
whenM
 if some condition is false:
unlessM
 if some condition is true:
How the Computer Executes FP Programs
Or "What does sequential computation look like using Monads"
Below, we'll be defining a long chain of nested functions. Since functions usually place their argument on the right of the body like this...
(\x > body) actualArgument
... we'll be putting it on the left using #
actualArgument # (\x > body)
In other words...
function arg == arg # function
(\x > x + 1) arg == arg # (\x > x + 1)
This will help the upcoming examples be much clearer and more understandable.
Using this type and its instance...
data Box a = Box a
instance Functor Box where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box a > Box b
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply :: forall a b. Box (a > b) > Box a > Box b
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Bind Box where
bind :: forall a b. Box a > (a > Box b) > Box b
bind (Box a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box where
pure :: forall a. a > Box a
pure a = Box a
... we will translate the Javascript "program" below...
const four = 4
const five = 1 + four
const five_string = toString(five); // or whatever the function called
print(five_string); // print the String to the console, which returns nothing
... into its corresponding Purescript "program" (next).
In the following snippet of code, you will need to scroll to the right, so that the a previous reduction aligns with the next reduction. Note: Read through this and practice writing it out multiple times until you get sick of it as this is at the heart of FP programming! Failure to understand this == Failure to write FP code. Here's the code:
unsafePerformEffect :: forall a. Box a > a
unsafePerformEffect (Box a) = a
 Compute what the final Box value is in `main`
 and then call `unsafePerformEffect` on the final Box
runProgram :: Unit
runProgram = unsafePerformEffect main
main :: Box Unit
main =
(Box 4) >>= (\four > Box (1 + four) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)))
 Step 1: Deinfix the first '>>=' alias back to bind
bind (Box 4) (\four > Box (1 + four) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)))
 Step 2: Look up Box's bind implementation...
 ...and replace the lefthand side with the righthand side
4 # (\four > Box (1 + four) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)))
 Step 3: Apply the arg to the function (i.e. replace "four" with 4)
(\4 > Box (1 + 4 ) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)))
 Step 4: Reduce the function to its body
Box (1 + 4 ) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
 Step 5: Reduce the argument in "Box (1 + 4)" to "Box 5"
Box (5 ) >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
 Step 6: Remove the parenthesis
Box 5 >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
 Step 7: Remove the extra whitespace and push right
Box 5 >>= (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
 Step 8: Repeat Steps 17 for the next ">>="
bind (Box 5) (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
5 # (\five > Box (show five) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
(\5 > Box (show 5 ) >>= (\five_string > print five_string))
Box (show 5 ) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)
Box ("5" ) >>= (\five_string > print five_string)
Box "5" >>= (\five_string > print five_string)
Box "5" >>= (\five_string > print five_string)
 Step 8: Repeat Steps 16 for the next ">>="
bind (Box "5") (\five_string > print five_string)
"5" # (\five_string > print five_string)
(\"5" > print "5")
print "5"
 Step 9: Look up `print`'s definition

 print :: forall a. a > Box Unit
 print a =
  Assume that 'a' is printed to the console
 Box unit

 ... and replace the LHS with RHS
Box unit
 Step 10a: Shift everything to the left again
 10b) ... and reexpose the 'main' function:
main :: Unit
main = Box unit  after all the earlier computations...
 Step 12: call `unsafePerformEffect` to get the final Box's value
runProgram :: Unit
runProgram = unsafePerformEffect (Box unit)
 becomes
runProgram :: Unit
runProgram = unit
Now go read the code snippet above again and write it out!
Do and Ado Notation
At this point, you should look back at the Syntax/PreludeSyntax
folder and read through its files. Feel free to ignore the Qualified Do/Ado Explained
file and those that follow.
Once finished, read the next file.
Useful Monads
Note: This file's contents assumes you have read through and are somewhat familiar with the contents of the file, Syntax/Prelude Syntax/Reading Do as Nested Binds.md
.
So far, we have only shown you the Box
monad to help you get used to the syntax and see the logic for how Monad
and bind
/>>=
works. (The Box
type is a learnerfriendly name for the Identity
monad, which we'll cover later in the Application Structure
folder.)
However, Monads
are used to compose two or more computations that occur within the same context (where context refers to the monadic type being used). Whereas the monadic type, Box
/Identity
, only has one possible value, the below types have two possible values. Functions that produce two possible outputs don't typically compose. However, the Monad
type class enables us to compose them using "railwayoriented programming" (~Scott Wlaschin).
When we compose different monadic types, we get different control flows. The do
notation helps us avoid the Pyramid of Doom boilerplate code and emphasizes developer intent.
The Maybe Monad
JavaScript Code
In JavaScript, we might write this code:
let a = computation();
if (a == null) {
return null;
} else {
let b = compute1(a);
if (b == null) {
return null;
} else {
let c = compute2(b);
if (c == null) {
return null;
} else {
return compute3(c);
}
}
}
PureScript Code (nonidiomatic)
In PureScript, we could write the following nonidiomatic code that repeats this Pyramid of Doom:
data Maybe a
= Nothing
 Just a
someComputation :: Maybe Unit
someComputation =
case computation of
Nothing > Nothing
Just a > case compute1 a of
Nothing > Nothing
Just b > case compute2 b of
Nothing > Nothing
Just c > compute3 c
where
computation :: Maybe a
compute1 :: a > Maybe b
compute2 :: b > Maybe c
compute3 :: c > Maybe Unit
PureScript Code (idiomatic)
Or, we could use Maybe
's Monad
instance via do notation
to write idiomatic PureScript code:
data Maybe a
= Nothing
 Just a
instance Bind Maybe where
bind :: forall a b. Maybe a > (a > Maybe b) > Maybe b
 when given a Nothing, stop all possible future computations
 and return immediately.
bind Nothing _ = Nothing
 when given a Just, run the function on its contents
 and continue any Monadic computations
bind (Just a) f = f a
someComputation :: Maybe ReturnValue
someComputation = do
a < computation
b < compute1 1
c < compute2 b
compute3 c
where
computation :: Maybe a
compute1 :: a > Maybe b
compute2 :: b > Maybe c
compute3 :: c > Maybe Unit
If a Nothing
value is given at any point in the nestedbind
computations, it will shortcircuit and return immediately.
What is a realworld example of using the Maybe monad? One often writes monadic code using Maybe as the Monad to lookup values in some structure (e.g. Map
, Array
, List
, or Tree
). Often, this control flow reads like this: "Try to get value X. If it exists, try to get value Y. If that exists, do something with both. If either one of them does not exist, stop and return immediately." In other words...
example :: Maybe String
example = do
x < index 4 array
y < lookup "fooKey" map
pure (x + y)
The Either Monad
JavaScript Code
In JavaScript, we might write this code:
let a = computation();
if (isError(a)) {
return a;
} else {
let b = compute1(a);
if (isError(b)) {
retun b;
} else {
let c = compute2(b);
if (isError(c)) {
return c;
} else {
return compute3(c);
}
}
}
PureScript Code (nonidiomatic)
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
someComputation :: Either ErrorType ReturnValue
someComputation = do
case computation of
Left err > Left err
Right a > case compute1 a of
Left err > Left err
Right b > case compute2 b of
Left err > Left err
Right c > compute3 c
where
computation :: Either ErrorType a
compute1 :: a > Either ErrorType b
compute2 :: b > Either ErrorType c
compute3 :: c > Either ErrorType Unit
PureScript Code (idiomatic)
Or, we could use Either
's Monad
instance via do notation
to write idiomatic PureScript code:
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
instance Bind (Either a) where
bind :: forall b c. Either a b > (b > Either a c) > Either a c
 when given a Left, stop all possible future computations
 and return immediately.
bind l@(Left _) _ = l
 when given a Right, run the function on its contents
 and continue any Monadic computations
bind (Right a) f = f a
someComputation :: Either ErrorType ReturnValue
someComputation = do
a < computation
b < compute1 1
c < compute2 b
compute3 c
If a Left
value is given at any point in the nestedbind
computations, it will shortcircuit and return immediately.
What is a realworld example of using the Either monad? One often uses it to validate that some data is correct. It reads like, "Try to parse the given String
into an Int
. If it fails, stop. Otherwise, try to parse the given String
into a Foo
. If it fails, stop. Otherwise, take the Int
and the Foo
and do something with them."
example :: String > Either String ValidatedData
example string = do
intValue < parseString string
fooValue < parseNextPart
doSomethingWith intValue fooValue
The List / Array Monad
We use the List
type below in our examples. However, the Array
type works exactly the same way.
JavaScript Code
In JavaScript, we would might write this code:
let list1 = [1, 2, 3];
let list2 = [2, 3, 4];
let list3 = [3, 4, 5];
var finalList = [];
for (i of list1) {
for (h of list2) {
for (j of list3) {
finalList.push(i + h + j);
}
}
}
return finalList;
PureScript Code (idiomatic)
The nonidiomatic version of the PureScript code below is complicated because it uses a lot of recusion. Thus, I do not show it here. Rather, we'll only show the idiomatic version:
data List a
= Nil
 Cons a (List a)
 bind implementation not shown here
instance Bind List where
bind :: forall a b. List a > (a > List b) > List b
 when given a Nil (end of list), stop all potential future computations and return immediately.
bind Nil _ = Nil
 when given a nonempty list, run the future computations on the head
 and then prepend it to the rest of the computations on the tail.
bind (head : tail) f = append (f head) (bind tail f)
append :: List x > List x > List x
append =
 implementation not shown here, but the result will be
 append (1 : 2 : Nil) (3 : 4 : Nil) == (1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : Nil)
someComputation :: List Int
someComputation = do
a < (1 : 2 : 3 : Nil)
b < (2 : 3 : 4 : Nil)
c < (3 : 4 : 5 : Nil)
pure (a + b + c)
which outputs:
 a = 1, b = 2
( 6 : 7 : 8
 a = 1, b = 3
: 7 : 8 : 9
 a = 1, b = 4
: 8 : 9 : 10
 a = 2, b = 2
: 7 : 8 : 9
 a = 2, b = 3
: 8 : 9 : 10
 a = 2, b = 4
: 9 : 10 : 11
 a = 3, b = 2
: 8 : 9 : 10
 a = 3, b = 3
: 9 : 10 : 11
 a = 3, b = 4
: 10 : 11 : 12
: Nil)
Concluding Thoughts
Different monadic types lead to different control flow statements. We've only shown a few here.
We will see more control flow options in the Application Structure
folder, but there's more groundwork to cover before it'll make sense.
Monoids Reconsidered
The below table is a summarized version of something cvlad
explained:
When we want to compose...  ...and we don't need "empty" value, we use  ...and we do need "empty" value, we use 

two values of same type  Semigroup  Monoid 
two values of different types where the second value DOES NOT have a runtime dependency on the first value  Apply  Applicative 
two values of different types where the second value DOES have a runtime dependency on the first value  Bind  Monad 
What was @cvlad
explaining? The meaning to this famous quote (in category theory terms):
A Monad is just a Monoid in the category of Endofunctors
To understand the quote more, see this link's 2minute concise summary, which was also provided by cvlad
: https://twitter.com/kenscambler/status/955441793465696257
One Monadic Type Per Monadic Context
Before we can continue further, we must understand one of the implications of the bind
function.
Defining the Problem
Let's look at the type signature for the bind
function.
class Apply boxLike <= Bind boxLike where
bind :: forall a b. boxLike a > (a > boxLike b) > boxLike b
If we ignore the (a > boxLike b)
argument, we can summarize it like this:
If you give me a "boxlike" type, I will output the same "boxlike" type.
In other words, once we use bind
in a given computation (e.g. do notation
), we restrict all usages of bind
within that same computation to the same "boxlike" type we originally passed in. This restriction is a good thing. There are ways to workaround the limitation. We'll cover one workaround below, but the other workarounds will be covered in the Application Structure
folder.
Throughout this work, we will refer to this restriction as the "bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives" restriction.
For now, let's provide an example of this problem.
Example of the Problem
Let's say we have two Box
types. They differ only in their name. Each implements the Functor
, Apply
, and Bind
instances in the exact same way. Below, we will only show the Bind
instance, but assume they have implemented the other type classes:
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
class Apply m <= Bind m where
bind :: forall a b. m a > (a > m b) > m b
instance Bind Box1 where
bind :: forall a b. Box1 a > (a > Box1 b) > Box1 b
bind (Box1 a) f = f a
instance Bind Box2 where
bind :: forall a b. Box2 a > (a > Box2 b) > Box2 b
bind (Box2 a) f = f a
Recall that do notation
desugars into multiple bind
calls:
example :: Box1 int
example = do
u < Box unit
five < Box 5
pure (five + 1)
 desugars to
example =
bind (Box unit) \u >
bind (Box 5) \five >
pure (five + 1)
The below Box1
computation compiles fine.
box1Computation :: Box1 Unit
box1Computation = Box1 unit
The below Box2
computation compiles fine:
box2Computation :: Box2 Unit
box2Computation = Box2 unit
If I write the following code, which (if any) will compile?
box1ThenBox2 :: Box2 Unit
box1ThenBox2 = do
box1Computation
box2Computation
box2ThenBox1 :: Box1 Unit
box2ThenBox1 = do
box2Computation
box1Computation
Neither will compile. In box1ThenBox2
, the first computation is box1Computation
. Thus, this computation should eventually output a value of the Box1 someOutput
type. However, we attempt to run a computation that uses a different monad (i.e. Box2
) within the Box1
monadic context. Since Box2
isn't Box1
, we get a compiler error. This same error occurs when you attempt to compile box2ThenBox1
.
The First Workaround: Lifting One Monad into Another
Sometimes, this restriction actually helps us write safer code. Other times, this restriction is problematic and we need to get around it.
To help develop the necessary foundation for later understanding, we'll show a general approach to workaround this restriction. We use a type class that follows this idea:
class LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad sourceMonad targetMonad where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. sourceMonad a > targetMonad a }
liftSourceMonad :: sourceMonad ~> targetMonad
 Note: instances of this idea might be more complicated than this one
instance LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad Box2 Box1 where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. Box2 a > Box1 a }
liftSourceMonad :: Box2 ~> Box1
liftSourceMonad (Box2 a) = Box1 a
This enables something like the following. It can be pasted into the REPL and one can try it out by calling bindAttempt
:
import Prelude  for the (+) and (~>) function aliases
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
class LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad sourceMonad targetMonad where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. sourceMonad a > targetMonad a }
liftSourceMonad :: sourceMonad ~> targetMonad
instance LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad Box2 Box1 where
liftSourceMonad :: Box2 ~> Box1
liftSourceMonad (Box2 a) = Box1 a
bindAttempt :: Box1 Int
bindAttempt = do
four < Box1 4
six < liftSourceMonad $ Box2 6
pure $ four + six
 type class instances for Monad hierarchy
instance Functor Box1 where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box1 a > Box1 b
map f (Box1 a) = Box1 (f a)
instance Apply Box1 where
apply :: forall a b. Box1 (a > b) > Box1 a > Box1 b
apply (Box1 f) (Box1 a) = Box1 (f a)
instance Bind Box1 where
bind :: forall a b. Box1 a > (a > Box1 b) > Box1 b
bind (Box1 a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box1 where
pure :: forall a. a > Box1 a
pure a = Box1 a
instance Monad Box1
 Needed to print the result to the console in the REPL session
instance (Show a) => Show (Box1 a) where
show (Box1 a) = show a
Appendable: Numeric Hierarchy
After Semigroup and Monoid, the rest of PureScript's Numeric type classes (e.g. Semiring
, Ring
, etc.) and all the mathematical notations they use are very clearly explained elsewhere in hdgarrood's Numeric Hierarchy Overview.
Once one finishes reading it, be sure to check out his fullscreen cheatsheet and his overview of PureScript's numeric types
Another resource that might be helpful is A Brief Guide to A Few Algebraic Data Structures. However, this is more of a reference material than a tutorial like Harry's above overview.
Docs
For derived functions (if any), see the type classes' docs.
Effect and Aff
This folder accomplishes the following goals:
 An explanation of what "native sideeffects" are and how this is modeled via
Effect
.  A demonstration of how to write the infamous "Hello World" app in Purescript
 A demonstration of the various
Effect
types out there and their usage.  An overview of
Aff
and how to use some of its API.  An explanation and example of using the first workaround to the "
bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives" restriction.  A howto guide for dealing with "callback hell" via
Aff
and usingNode.ReadLine
as an example.
These examples are compilable, enabling the reader to do two things.
REPL
First, one can interact with the code in this folder by using the REPL via the command, spago repl
. Once initialized, one can import a module into the REPL and play with the code from there (e.g. run main
).
For example, one might input the following command sequence:
spago repl
import HelloWorld
main
Note: some of the code in this folder will not work properly when used with the REPL. When it doesn't, use the second approach below.
Compilation
Second, one can compile the examples into their resulting JavaScript files. One can view just the module (i.e. the JavaScript code generated from a single PS file) or the entire program as an executable file (i.e. the JavaScript code generated from a call to file's main
function). The latter can be run using Node
:
Single Module  Entire Program  

Command  spago makemodule main [moduleName] to dist/module.js  spago bundleapp main [moduleName] to dist/app.js 
Javascript files' location  dist/module.js  dist/app.js 
Effect Folder
To run each program in the Effect
folder, use these commands:
# Syntax
# spago run main Module.Path.To.Main.Module
spago run main HelloWorld
spago run main HelloNumber
spago run main HelloDoNotation
spago run main RandomNumber
spago run main CurrentDateAndTime
spago run main TimeoutAndInterval
spago run main MutableState.Global
spago run main MutableState.Local
Aff Folder
To run each program in the Aff
folder, use these commands:
spago run m AffBasics.LaunchAff
spago run m AffBasics.Delay
spago run m AffBasics.ForkJoin
spago run m AffBasics.SuspendJoin
spago run m AffBasics.CachedJoin
spago run m AffBasics.SwitchingContexts
spago run m TimeoutAndInterval.Aff
The following examples must be compiled first and then run by node
:
spago bundleapp m ConsoleLessons.ReadLine.Effect t dist/readlineeffect.js && node dist/readlineeffect.js
spago bundleapp m ConsoleLessons.ReadLine.Aff t dist/readlineaff.js && node dist/readlineaff.js
The Effect Monad
(The following section is copied from here and slightly edited. I would add the license for that here, but it's not listed. Since the documentation is supposed to be public anyways, I doubt this is an issue.)
When we talk about sideeffects, we are referring to two possible meanings. The first are "nonnative" sideeffects that we can emulate using pure functions (e.g. state manipulation on immutable data structures, returning additional output from a computation, etc.). The second are "native sideeffects", which are effects provided by the RunTime System (RTS) and which can't be emulated by pure functions.
Some examples of native effects are:
 Shared
 Random number generation
 Exceptions
 Rendering content to the screen
 Node only:
 User input via the terminal
 Interacting with the File System
 Browser only:
 DOM manipulation
 XMLHttpRequest / AJAX calls
 Interacting with a websocket
 Interacting with Cookies
PureScript's purescripteffect
package defines a monad called Effect
, which is used to handle native effects. The goal of the Effect
monad is to provide a typed API for effectful computations, while at the same time generating efficient Javascript.
(The remainder of this article is my own work.)
Understanding the Effect Monad
The following code is not necessarily how Effect
is implemented, but it does help one quickly understand it by analogy:
data Unit = Unit
unit :: Unit
unit = Unit
  A computation that will only be run when passed in a `unit`
type PendingComputation a = (Unit > a)
  A data structure that stores a pending computation.
data Effect a = Box (PendingComputation a > a)
  This unwraps the data structure to get the
  pending computation, uses it to compute a value,
  and returns its result.
unsafePerformEffect :: Effect a > a
unsafePerformEffect (Box pendingComputation) = pendingComputation unit
Some readers may realize that this is similar to the idea we introduced back in ROOT_FOLDER/HelloWorld/Prelude/ControlFlowFunctortoMonad.md
when we showed how an FP program does sequential computation using Monads. If you replace Box
from that example with Effect
, you would have a working FP program.
The whole idea of Effect
is to use unsafePerformEffect
as little as possible and ideally only once as the program's main entry point, explained next.
Main: A Program's Entry Point
The entry point into each program written in Purescript is the main
function. It's type signature must be: main :: Effect Unit
.
The following explanation is not what happens in practice, but understanding it this way will help one understand the concepts it represents:
When one executes the command
spago bundleapp
, one could say that, conceptually, spago will compileunsafePerformEffect main
into Javascript and the resulting Javascript is what gets run by the RunTime System (RTS) when the program is executed.
In other words, spago "creates" a function called runProgram
and tells the RunTime System (RTS) to execute it
runProgram :: Unit
runProgram = unsafePerformEffect main
This limits our impure code as much as possible to the program's start. Hopefully, everything else in our code is pure.
However, one might still call unsafePerformEffect
in otherwise pure code in situations where they know what they are doing. In other words, they know the pros & cons, costs & benefits of doing so, and are willing to pay for those costs to achieve their benefits.
02HelloWorld.purs
 This is the infamous "Hello World" app in Purescript.
module HelloWorld where
import Prelude  imports Unit
 new imports
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)  log :: String > Effect Unit
  Describes but does not run a computation until RTS "calls unsafePerformEffect".
  The type signature of `log` is `String > Effect Unit`. Thus, by applying
  a value of type `String` as an argument to `log`,
  `log "Hello World!"` has the type signature `Effect Unit`.
  Thus, it can be used as a main entry point into a program.
main :: Effect Unit
main = log "Hello world!"
03HelloNumber.purs
module HelloNumber where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
 new imports
 logShow :: forall a. Show a => a > Effect Unit
 logShow arg = log $ show arg
import Effect.Console (logShow)
main :: Effect Unit
main = logShow 5
04HelloDoNotation.purs
module HelloDoNotation where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
 A refresher on 'donotation'
 This chain of functions via log
main' :: Effect Unit
main' = (log "This is outputted first") >>= (\_ >
(log "This is outputted second") >>= (\_ >
log "This is outputted third"
)
)
 can become more readable using sugar syntax (donotation):
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "This is outputted first"
log "This is outputted second"
log "This is outputted third"
01RandomNumber.purs
module RandomNumber where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
 new import
import Effect.Random (random)
 random :: Effect Number
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
n < random
log $ "A random number between 0.0 and 1.0: " <> show n
 The above two lines could also be combined into one
 if we resort to using bindnotation again:
random >>= (\n2 > log $ "Another random number: " <> show n2)
 The above line still works because `log` returns `Effect Unit`
02CurrentDateandTime.purs
module CurrentDateAndTime where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log, logShow)
 new import
import Effect.Now as Now
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
dateAndTime < Now.nowDateTime
logShow dateAndTime
log ""
 To reduce the above to one line, we'll combine the two using bindnotation.
 Since `logShow` has the type signature `Effect Unit`, the donotation
 still works.
Now.nowDate >>= (\x > logShow x)
Now.nowTime >>= (\x > logShow x)
 We could make the above even shorter by removing the 'x' argument
Now.nowDate >>= logShow
Now.nowTime >>= logShow
03TimeoutandInterval.purs
module TimeoutAndInterval where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
 new import
import Effect.Timer as T
 Unfortunately, the code below won't work as expected because
 the callbacks never run. Not enough time passes before they get triggered.
 We'll see how to fix this using the `Aff` monad later in this folder.
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
timeoutID < T.setTimeout 1000 (log "This will run after 1 second")
intervalID < T.setInterval 10 (log "Interval ran!")
log "Doing some other things...."
log (evaluate 10 20)
log "... Finished."
log "Now cancelling interval"
T.clearInterval intervalID
log "Now cancelling timeout"
T.clearTimeout timeoutID
log "Program is done!"
evaluate :: Int > Int > String
evaluate x y  x < y = show x <> " is less than " <> show y
 x > y = show x <> " is greater than " <> show y
 otherwise = show x <> " is equal to " <> show y
Mutable State: Global vs Local
There are two types of mutable state:
Global  Local  

Creatable in...  Anywhere  Local scope 
Readable from...  Anywhere that has its reference  Local Scope 
Writable to...  Anywhere that has its reference  Local Scope 
Destroyed when...  Program Exits?  Exit Local Scope 
Using JavaScript as an example...
var global_state = "some state";
var doStuffUsingLocalState() = {
var local_state = "some value";
local_state = local_state + "some other string";
return local_state.length();
}
var example1() {
// change global state
global_state = "first change!";
// localState changed during the execution of the below
// function, but we can't change it outside of that function.
doStuffUsingLocalState();
}
example1();
var example2() {
global_state = "second change!";
return;
}
example2();
01Global.purs
module MutableState.Global where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
 new import
import Effect.Ref as Ref
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
box < Ref.new 0
x0 < Ref.read box
log $ "x0 should be 0: " <> show x0
Ref.write 5 box
Ref.read box >>= (\x1 > log $ "x1 should be 5: " <> show x1)
Ref.modify_ (\oldState > oldState + 1) box
x2 < Ref.read box
log $ "x2 should be 6: " <> show x2
newState < Ref.modify (\oldState > oldState + 1) box
x3 < Ref.read box
log $ "x3 should be 7: " <> show x3 <> "  newState should be 7: " <> show newState
value < Ref.modify' (\oldState > { state: oldState * 10, value: 30 }) box
x4 < Ref.read box
log $ "value should be 30: " <> show value
log $ "x4 should be 70: " <> show x4
let loop 0 = Ref.read box
loop n = do
_ < Ref.modify (_ + 1) box
loop (n  1)
_ < loop 20
log "Finished"
02Local.purs
module MutableState.Local where
import Prelude
import Control.Monad.ST as ST
import Control.Monad.ST.Ref as STRef
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "We will run some modifications on some local state \
\and then try to modify it out of scope."
let result = ST.run do
{
At this level of indentation, we are in the ST monadic context.
Since `log` returns an `Effect a`, we can't use it here.
At this point in our understanding, we don't currently have a way
to print the values of the local state to the console.
We'll explain why this is a good thing later on in the `Debugging` folder.
}
box < STRef.new 0
x0 < STRef.read box
_ < STRef.write 5 box
x1 < STRef.read box
newState < STRef.modify (\oldState > oldState + 1) box
x3 < STRef.read box
value < STRef.modify' (\oldState > { state: oldState * 10, value: 30 }) box
x4 < STRef.read box
let loop 0 = STRef.read box
loop n = do
_ < STRef.modify (_ + 1) box
loop (n  1)
loop 20
log $ "Result of computation that used local state was: " <> show result
log "Attempting to access `box` in this monadic context will result \
\in a compiler error."
Summary of Effect Libraries
Since the spago.dhall
file does not allow me to explain what each dependency does, I've offloaded that to the table below. These are not all of the Effects that exist. For example, I did not cover Avar
, Aff
, and others (see the full list on Pursuit here. Not all of the Effects
found on there are truly Effect
s as they might be newtypes for something else). Rather, they give you something to use as you learn more and more of Purescript and FP concepts:
Library  Included Module  Usage 

purescripteffect  Effect  Provides the Effect type itself. 
purescriptconsole  Effect.Console  Provides bindings to the Console 
purescriptrandom  Effect.Random  Type used to create random values 
purescriptnow  Effect.Now  Get current Date/Time from machine. (Note: see the datetime repo for additional related functions) 
purescriptjstimers  Effect.Timer  Bindings to lowlevel JS API: set/clearTimeout and set/clearInterval 
purscriptrefs  Effect.Ref  Global mutable state 
purscriptst  Control.Monad.ST  Local mutable state 
Effect, Eff, and Aff
Some History
Before the 0.12.0
release, the Effect
monad used to be called Eff
.
In short, the decision was made to drop Eff
's "extensible effects". Presumably, to prevent code breakage, Eff
and package location in imports was unchanged. Rather, it can now be found in the purescripteff package. Its replacement was called Effect
.
(You can read more about the decision making process here. If one is curious about Eff
, read through the related section in the "Purescript by Example" book as it won't be covered here.)
Aff
The Aff
monad was introduced and in use before this decision was made. Thus, history explains the naming behind Aff
: if Eff
was for synchronous effects, then Aff
is for asychronous effects.
Aff
will be covered in more depth in the upcoming files.
Aff
If you're writing an application (as opposed to a library), you should almost always use Aff
to run your native sideeffectful computations rather than Effect
. Here are some of its advantages:
 prevents "callback hell" for which Node.js is wellknown.
 enables concurrent programming (but not parallel programming as JavaScript is singlethreaded).
 is a stacksafe monad (
Effect
is not currently stacksafe).
Aff
is basically what one would get if one implemented JavaScript Promises as a Monad.
Before continuing one with this folder's contents, watch Async Programming in PureScript to learn what problem Aff
solves and a tour of its API for how to use it (actual video on YouTube is titled: "LA PureScript Meetup 12/05/17").
If, after watching the above video, you are tempted to figure out how Aff
works internally, let me strongly recommend against that. The JavaScript code used to implement Aff
is difficult to understand. Your time would be better invested elsewhere. Rather, I'd recommend looking at it when you have a better grasp of FP concepts.
Folder's Contents
First, we'll overview some of Aff
s API via some working examples that one can play with. Since all programs must be run in Effect
, this will show the simplest way to start running computations in the Aff
monad: launchAff_
Second, we'll show one way for making it possible to run an Effect
based computations in an Aff
monadic context. (Note: this solution won't work for the ST
monadic context in the Effect
folder's LocalState.purs
example.) Then, we'll show how to fix the issue we experienced in our the Effect
folder's TimeoutandInterval.purs
file.
Third, we'll use the Node.ReadLine
library to show how to convert Effect
based computations that require callbacks into Aff
based computations via makeAff
. We'll also show the more complicated way to run a computation in the Aff
monad, but which exposes all of Aff
's features: runAff
.
Finally, we'll link to other Aff
based libraries that one will likely find helpful.
Aff Basics
This folder shows some of the API of Aff
. As stated before, all applications (not libraries) must be started in the Effect
monad (or Eff
if that's what you're using instead). An Aff
based computation can be converted into an Effect
based on by using launchAff
/launchAff_
.
So far, we've been printing values to the screen via log
. That function's type signature is String > Effect Unit
. Since the "bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives" restriction exists, we normally would not be able to use/compute in a different monadic context. For the time being, we will work around that problem by using a special function called specialLog
. We'll explain how that's possible in the next folder, Lifting Monads
, but for now just read it like you would log
.
API not covered here (though it shouldn't be that hard to figure out how it works after reading through these examples and watching Nate's video)
supervisor
bracket
killFiber
01LaunchingAff.purs
module AffBasics.LaunchAff where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (launchAff, launchAff_)
import Effect.Console (log)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "This is an Effect computation (Effect monadic context).\n"
void $ launchAff do
specialLog "This is an Aff computation (Aff monadic context)."
specialLog "Aff provides the `launchAff` function that enables an \
\Aff computation to run inside an Effect monadic context.\n"
launchAff_ do
specialLog "`launchAff_` is just `void $ launchAff`.\n"
log "Program finished."
02Delay.purs
module AffBasics.Delay where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, launchAff_)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
main :: Effect Unit
main = launchAff_ do
specialLog "Let's print something to the console and then \
\wait 1 second before printing another thing."
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0  1 second
specialLog "1 second has passed."
specialLog "Program finished."
03ForkJoin.purs
module AffBasics.ForkJoin where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, forkAff, joinFiber, launchAff_)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
main :: Effect Unit
main = launchAff_ do
let
fiber1 = "Fiber 1"
fiber2 = "Fiber 2"
fiber3 = "Fiber 3"
specialLog "Let's run multiple computations concurrently. Then, \
\we'll use `joinFiber` to ensure all computations have \
\finished before we do another computation."
firstFiber < forkAff do
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": Waiting for 1 second until completion."
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": Finished computation."
secondFiber < forkAff do
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 1 (takes 300 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 300.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 2 (takes 300 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 300.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 3 (takes 500 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 500.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Finished computation."
thirdFiber < forkAff do
specialLog $ fiber3 <> ": Nothing to do. Just return immediately."
specialLog $ fiber3 <> ": Finished computation."
joinFiber firstFiber
specialLog $ fiber1 <> " has finished. Now joining on " <> fiber2
joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog $ fiber3 <> " has finished. Now joining on " <> fiber3
joinFiber thirdFiber
specialLog $ fiber3 <> " has finished. All fibers have finished their \
\computation."
specialLog "Program finished."
04SuspendJoin.purs
module AffBasics.SuspendJoin where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, joinFiber, launchAff_, suspendAff)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
main :: Effect Unit
main = launchAff_ do
let
fiber1 = "Fiber 1"
fiber2 = "Fiber 2"
fiber3 = "Fiber 3"
specialLog "Let's setup multiple computations. Then, we'll use \
\`joinFiber` to actually run the computations for the first time. \
\When they run, they will block until finished.\n"
specialLog "Setting up the first fiber, but not yet running its computation."
firstFiber < suspendAff do
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": Waiting for 1 second until completion."
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": Finished computation."
specialLog "Setting up the second fiber, but not yet running its computation."
secondFiber < suspendAff do
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 1 (takes 300 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 300.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 2 (takes 300 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 300.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Computation 3 (takes 500 ms)."
delay $ Milliseconds 500.0
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": Finished computation."
specialLog "Setting up the third fiber, but not yet running its computation."
thirdFiber < suspendAff do
specialLog $ fiber3 <> ": Nothing to do. Just return immediately."
specialLog $ fiber3 <> ": Finished computation."
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
specialLog "Now running the first fiber's computation and blocking \
\until it finishes."
joinFiber firstFiber
specialLog "Now running the second fiber's computation and blocking \
\until it finishes."
joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog "Now running the third fiber's computation and blocking \
\until it finishes."
joinFiber thirdFiber
specialLog $ "All fibers have finished their computation."
specialLog "Program finished."
05CachedJoin.purs
module AffBasics.CachedJoin where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, forkAff, joinFiber, launchAff_, suspendAff)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
main :: Effect Unit
main = launchAff_ do
let
fiber1 = "Fiber 1"
fiber2 = "Fiber 2"
specialLog "Let's compute multiple computations. Then, we'll refer to the \
\value they produced multiple times to see that the result is \
\cached.\n"
firstFiber < forkAff do
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": You will only see this message once!"
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
pure 10
secondFiber < suspendAff do
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": You will only see this message once!"
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
pure 50
result1 < joinFiber firstFiber
result2 < joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog "Finished joining fibers. After small pause, will join again \
\to see whether their computations are rerun."
delay $ Milliseconds 2000.0
specialLog "Rejoining fibers!"
result1_again < joinFiber firstFiber
result2_again < joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog "Finished joining fibers again."
specialLog $ "Result 1 is the same? " <> show (result1 == result1_again)
specialLog $ "Result 2 is the same? " <> show (result2 == result2_again)
specialLog "Program finished."
06SwitchingContexts.purs
module AffBasics.SwitchingContexts where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, joinFiber, launchAff, launchAff_, launchSuspendedAff)
import Effect.Console (log)
import SpecialLog (specialLog)
 This example was created to show what happens when `launchSuspendedAff`
 is used and its requirement to be run in another Aff computation later.

 It also shows the unpredictability of switching
 between the synchronous Effect and asychronous Aff in this way.
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let
fiber1 = "Fiber 1"
fiber2 = "Fiber 2"
log "This is an Effect computation (Effect monadic context).\n"
 Runs an Aff computation and returns the fiber that, when joined,
 will produce the computed value. It must be joined in a new
 `Aff` computation.
firstFiber < launchAff do
specialLog $ fiber1 <> ": You will only see this message once!"
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
pure 10
 Creates an Aff computation, but does not run it. Rather, returns
 the fiber that, when joined, will start and finish the computation,
 returning the computed value when done. It must be joined in a new
 `Aff` computation.
secondFiber < launchSuspendedAff do
specialLog $ fiber2 <> ": You will only see this message once!"
delay $ Milliseconds 1000.0
pure 50
log "\nJust some other stuff we need to do in the Effect monadic context...\n"
launchAff_ do
specialLog "Back inside an Aff monadic context. Let's see what those \
\fibers did!\n"
result1 < joinFiber firstFiber
result2 < joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog "Finished joining fibers. After small pause, will join again \
\to see whether their computations are rerun."
delay $ Milliseconds 2000.0
specialLog "Rejoining fibers!"
result1_again < joinFiber firstFiber
result2_again < joinFiber secondFiber
specialLog "Finished joining fibers again."
specialLog $ "Result 1 is the same? " <> show (result1 == result1_again)
specialLog $ "Result 2 is the same? " <> show (result2 == result2_again)
log "Back outside. Now in the Effect monadic context."
log "=======================\n\
\The end of our code, but not the end of our program.\n\
\=======================\n"
MonadEffect
In the previous folder, we saw that we could print content to the console using specialLog
. Underneath, we're using log
, the function with the type, String > Effect Unit
. Since "bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives," how was this possible?
In this file, we'll show one way to workaround this limitation. This solution will be used frequently in real code wherever the Effect
monad is used. However, this solution doesn't necessarily work for other monads. Still, it is conceptually easy to understand and creates scaffolding. That scaffolding will make it easier to understand other workarounds to this restriction that we'll discuss in the Application Structure
folder.
Reviewing a Previous Workaround: Lifting one Monad into another
When overviewing the ""bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives" restriction, we described the previous workaround:
import Prelude  for the (+) and (~>) function aliases
data Box1 a = Box1 a
data Box2 a = Box2 a
class LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad sourceMonad targetMonad where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. sourceMonad a > targetMonad a }
liftSourceMonad :: sourceMonad ~> targetMonad
instance LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad Box2 Box1 where
liftSourceMonad :: Box2 ~> Box1
liftSourceMonad (Box2 a) = Box1 a
bindAttempt :: Box1 Int
bindAttempt = do
four < Box1 4
six < liftSourceMonad $ Box2 6
pure $ four + six
 type class instances for Monad hierarchy
instance Functor Box1 where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Box1 a > Box1 b
map f (Box1 a) = Box1 (f a)
instance Apply Box1 where
apply :: forall a b. Box1 (a > b) > Box1 a > Box1 b
apply (Box1 f) (Box1 a) = Box1 (f a)
instance Bind Box1 where
bind :: forall a b. Box1 a > (a > Box1 b) > Box1 b
bind (Box1 a) f = f a
instance Applicative Box1 where
pure :: forall a. a > Box1 a
pure a = Box1 a
instance Monad Box1
 Needed to print the result to the console in the REPL session
instance (Show a) => Show (Box1 a) where
show (Box1 a) = show a
MonadEffect
When we have an Effect
based computation that we want to run in some other monadic context, we can use liftEffect
from MonadEffect if the target monad has an instance for MonadEffect
:
class (Monad m) <= MonadEffect m where
liftEffect :: Effect ~> m
Aff
has an instance for MonadEffect
, so we can lift Effect
based computations into an Aff
monadic context. Below was how we defined specialLog
. You can see it in the next file:
specialLog :: String > Aff Unit
specialLog message = liftEffect $ log message
Referring back to our previous "local state" example, the ST
monad does not have an instance for MonadEffect
. This decision is intentional: state manipulation of that kind should be pure and not have any sideeffects. That's why it exists inside of its own monadic context: to ensure that those who attempt to do so get compiler errors. This is a safety precaution, not a "we wanted to be jerks who frustrate you" decision.
As we saw previously in the SwitchingContext.purs
file, running multiple Aff
computations in an Effect
monadic context doesn't always lead to a predictable output. However, running multiple Effect
based computations in an Aff
monadic context is much more predictable.
02SpecialLog.purs
module SpecialLog (specialLog) where
import Prelude
import Effect.Aff (Aff)
import Effect.Class (liftEffect)
import Effect.Console (log)
specialLog :: String > Aff Unit
specialLog msg = liftEffect $ log msg
03TimeoutandInterval.purs
module TimeoutAndInterval.Aff where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Milliseconds(..), delay, launchAff_)
import Effect.Class (liftEffect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Effect.Timer as T
main :: Effect Unit
main = launchAff_ do
timeoutID < liftEffect $ T.setTimeout 1000 (log "This will run after 1 second")
intervalID < liftEffect $ T.setInterval 10 (log "Interval ran!")
liftEffect do
 Since these three log calls use `bind` to sequence them into
 a single `Effect Unit` computation, we can reduce verbosity
 by lifting all of them using one `liftEffect`.
log "Doing some other things...."
log (evaluate 10 20)
log "... Finished."
liftEffect do
log "Now cancelling interval"
T.clearInterval intervalID
 Here, we'll delay the computation long enough to ensure the
 above timeout callback actually runs.
delay (Milliseconds 1300.0)
liftEffect do
log "Now cancelling timeout"
T.clearTimeout timeoutID
log "Program is done!"
evaluate :: Int > Int > String
evaluate x y  x < y = show x <> " is less than " <> show y
 x > y = show x <> " is greater than " <> show y
 otherwise = show x <> " is equal to " <> show y
Node ReadLine API
Node's ReadLine API docs are here. In this folder, we'll use the following Purescript bindings of the API (The Pursuit docs are outdated as they only show docs for an earlier release. So, either run spago docs
and look at the Node.ReadLine
module's docs, or look at the source code to see all of what is supported.
Below, I cover some of the API (some of the functions below had their 'foreign import' part removed to shorten the type signature):
 Copyright is at the end of this file
foreign import data Interface :: Type
  A function which performs tab completion.
type Completer
= String
> Effect
{ completions :: Array String
, matched :: String
}
  A completion function which offers no completions.
noCompletion :: Completer
noCompletion s =  implementation
  Create an interface with the specified completion function.
createConsoleInterface :: Completer > Effect Interface
createConsoleInterface compl =  implementation
  Writes a message to the output and adds a listener to the
  interface that invokes the callback function when an
  event occurs (i.e. user inputs some text and presses Enter).
question :: String > (String > Effect Unit) > Interface > Effect Unit
question message handleUserInput interface =  implementation
  Closes the specified `Interface` and cleans up resources.
close :: Interface > Effect Unit
close interface =  implementation
Copyright for above code:
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2014 PureScript
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
02ReadLineEffect.purs
module ConsoleLessons.ReadLine.Effect where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
{
This file will demonstrate why using `Effect` to work with `Node.ReadLine`
creates the Pyramid of Doom.
Look through the code and then use the command in the folder's
ReadMe.md file to run it using Node (not Spago) to see what happens.
}
 new imports
import Node.ReadLine ( createConsoleInterface, noCompletion
, question, close)
type UseAnswer = (String > Effect Unit)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "\n\n"  separate output from program output
log "Creating interface..."
interface < createConsoleInterface noCompletion
log "Created!\n"
log "Requesting user input..."
interface # question "Type something here (1): " \answer1 > do
log $ "You typed: '" <> answer1 <> "'\n"
interface # question "Type something here (2): " \answer2 > do
log $ "You typed: '" <> answer2 <> "'\n"
interface # question "Type something here (3): " \answer3 > do
log $ "You typed: '" <> answer3 <> "'\n"
interface # question "Type something here (4): " \answer4 > do
log $ "You typed: '" <> answer4 <> "'\n"
interface # question "Type something here (5): " \answer5 > do
log $ "You typed: '" <> answer5 <> "'\n"
log "Now closing interface"
close interface
log "Finished!"
log "This will print as we wait for your 5th answer."
log "This will print as we wait for your 4th answer."
log "This will print as we wait for your 3rd answer."
log "This will print as we wait for your 2nd answer."
log "This will print as we wait for your 1st answer."
Basic Aff Functions
In this file, we'll show the second way to run an Aff
computation called runAff
and how to convert Node.ReadLine
's question
function (i.e. an Effect
based function that requires a callback) into an Aff
based computation using makeAff
.
Aff Overview
Let's first overview some of Aff
's concepts, so that the upcoming code is easier to understand. To be a truly asynchronous effect monad, Aff
must support the following features:
 handles errors that may arise during its computation
 returns some computation's output
 can be cancelled if it's no longer needed
To model the possibility for a computation to return an error or actual output, we can use Either a b
. Handling errors and output implies a function. Aff
uses the type signature, Either errorType outputType > Effect Unit
, for that.
Lastly, cancelling implies what to do when the computation is either no longer needed or it has failed (but we aren't using the function just discussed above). As an example, one will use Canceler
s to clean up resources (e.g. clearTimeout
).
newtype Canceler = Canceler (Error > Aff Unit)
Since our present interests do not require cancellation, we can use a noop Canceler
: nonCanceler
Understanding runAff
For our purposes, we need an Aff
to run inside of an Effect
monadic context. If one looks through Aff
's docs, the only one that does this besides launchAff
and its variants is runAff_
:
runAff_ :: forall a.
(Either Error a > Effect Unit) >  arg 1
Aff a >  arg 2
Effect Unit  outputted value
Breaking this down, runAff_
takes two arguments (explained in reverse):
 an
Aff
computation to run  a function for handling a possible asynchronous
Error
if the computation fails or the computation's output,a
, if it succeeds.
Using it should look something like:
runAff_ (\either > case either of
Left error > log $ show error
Right a >  do something with 'a' or run cleanup code
)
affValue
We could make the code somewhat easier by using Data.Either (either)
runAff_ (either
(\error > log $ show error )  Left value
(\a > { usage or cleanup } )  Right value
)
affValue
Understanding makeAff
Next, we need to convert question
from an Effect
based computation into an Aff
based one. Looking through Pursuit again, makeAff
is the only function that does this:
makeAff :: forall a. ((Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler) > Aff a
Breaking this down, makeAff
takes only one argument. However, the argument is a bit quirky since it takes a function as its argument. We should read it as...
Given a function
that returns an `Effect Canceler`
by using the function that `runAff_` requires
(i.e. `(Either Error a > Effect Unit)`),
output an `Aff` computation that produces a value of type `a` when `bind`ed
To create this type signature, we'll write something like this:
affValue :: Aff String
affValue = makeAff go
where
go :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler
go runAff_RequiredFunction =  implementation
Since the implementation will need to return an Effect Canceler
, we can do one of two things:
 Lift a canceller into
Effect
viapure
. This is pointless because then ourAff
wouldn't do anything.  Create an
Effect a
and use Functor's dervied function,voidRight
(<$
), withnonCanceler
 for a refresher on voidRight
2 `voidRight` (Box 1) == 2 <$ (Box 1) == (Box 2)
 alias is: "<$"
voidRight :: forall f a b. Functor f => b > f a > f b
voidRight b box = (\_ > b) <$> box
 or ignore the monad's inner 'a' and replace it with 'b'
Updating our code to use these two ideas, we now have:
affValue :: Aff String
affValue = makeAff go
where
go :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler
go runAff_RequiredFunction = nonCanceler <$ (effectBox runAff_RequiredFunction)
effectBox :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
effectBox runAffFunction =  implementation
We want to use question
to print something to the console, get the user's input, and return that value. It's type signature is:
question :: String > (String > Effect Unit) > Interface > Effect String
question message handleUserInput interface =  Node binding implementation
The only place we could insert runAffFunction
is in (String > Effect Unit)
. Thus, we come up with this function:
effectBox :: (Either Error String > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
effectBox runAffFunction =
question message (\userInput > runAffFunction (Right userInput)) interface
 (runAffFunction <<< Right)  less verbose; same thing
Putting it all together and excluding the required arguments, we get:
affValue :: Aff String
affValue = makeAff go
where
go :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler
go runAff_RequiredFunction = nonCanceler <$ (effectBox runAff_RequiredFunction)
effectBox :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
effectBox runAffFunction = question message (runAffFunction <<< Right) interface
Cleaning it up and including the arguments, we get:
affQuestion :: String > Interface > Aff String
affQuestion message interface = makeAff go
where
go :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler
go runAffFunction =
nonCanceler <$ question message (runAffFunction <<< Right) interface
04ReadLineAff.purs
module ConsoleLessons.ReadLine.Aff where
import Prelude
import Data.Either (Either(..))
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Aff (Aff, runAff_, makeAff, nonCanceler)
import Effect.Class (liftEffect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Node.ReadLine (Interface, createConsoleInterface, noCompletion, close)
import Node.ReadLine as ReadLine
 This is `affQuestion` from the previous file
question :: String > Interface > Aff String
question message interface = makeAff go
where
 go :: (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Effect Canceler
go runAffFunction = nonCanceler <$
ReadLine.question message (runAffFunction <<< Right) interface
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "\n\n"  separate output from program
log "Creating interface..."
interface < createConsoleInterface noCompletion
log "Created!\n"
{
runAff_ :: forall a. (Either Error a > Effect Unit) > Aff a > Effect Unit }
runAff_
 Ignore any errors and output and just close the interface
(\_ > closeInterface interface)
(useInterface interface)
where
closeInterface :: Interface > Effect Unit
closeInterface interface = do
log "Now closing interface"
close interface
log "Finished!"
 Same code as before, but without the Pyramid of Doom!
useInterface :: Interface > Aff Unit
useInterface interface = do
liftEffect $ log "Requesting user input..."
answer1 < interface # question "Type something here (1): "
liftEffect $ log $ "You typed: '" <> answer1 <> "'\n"
answer2 < interface # question "Type something here (2): "
liftEffect $ log $ "You typed: '" <> answer2 <> "'\n"
answer3 < interface # question "Type something here (3): "
liftEffect $ log $ "You typed: '" <> answer3 <> "'\n"
answer4 < interface # question "Type something here (4): "
liftEffect $ log $ "You typed: '" <> answer4 <> "'\n"
answer5 < interface # question "Type something here (5): "
liftEffect $ log $ "You typed: '" <> answer5 <> "'\n"
Useful Aff Libraries
Based on Aff
These were found using a purescriptaff search on Pursuit:
purescriptaffbus
purescriptaffretry
purescriptaffpromise
 This library makes JavaScript Promises properly work/communicate together with PureScript Aff computations and vice versa.
purescriptaffparallel
purescriptaffreattempt
purescriptaffthrottler
purescriptaffcoroutines
purescriptaffjax
purescriptavar
purescriptconcurrentqueues
Aff Wrappers Around Node
 purescriptnodefsaff
 purescriptnodereadlineaff (outdated: does not compile on
PureScript 0.13.8
)
Debugging
This folder helps you debug problems in your code by
 explaining some tips/tricks to use to help debug compiler errors
 forewarning about some potential misunderstandings
 helping you to read some compiler errors
Running The Lessons
You should NOT use the REPL for these lessons.
Rather, you should use spago to run them using this syntax:
spago run main Debugging.OverviewAPI
When compiling these examples, you will likely see a warning like below:
Warning found:
in module Debugging.CustomTypeErrors.TypeClassInstances
at src/03CustomTypeErrors/04TypeClassInstances.purs line 41, column 1  line 41, column 23
A custom warning occurred while solving type class constraints:
No worries! This warning is supposed to happen!
[Some warning message here...]
in value declaration warnInstance
See https://github.com/purescript/documentation/blob/master/errors/UserDefinedWarning.md for more information,
or to contribute content related to this warning.
This is supposed to happen, so don't be alarmed. When we hit that part of our lessons, we'll tell you how to remove the warnings so you can get rid of the "compiler noise."
General Debugging
The following sections are tips for debugging issues that may arise in a stronglytyped language via the compiler.
There is currently no "Actual Type / Expected Type" distinction
In the following error...
Could not match type
A
with type
B
... rest of error ...
... one might expect A
to be the "actual" type and B
to be the "expected" type. However, sometimes the two are swapped, so that A
is the "expected" type and B
is the "actual" type. This is not desirable, but is currently how the compiler works.
Why? Because the compiler uses a mixture of unification and type inference to check types. See purescript/purescript#3399 for more information.
Distinguishing the Difference between {...}
and (...)
errors
(thomashoneyman recommended I document this. These examples might be incorrect since I am not fully aware of the comment that garyb made, but the general idea still applies.)
Recall that { label :: Type }
is syntax sugar for Record (label :: Type)
So, the below error means a Record
could not unify with some other type:
Could not match type
{ label :: Type }
with type
String
Whereas the below error means a Record
was the correct type, but some of its labeltype associations were missing.
Could not match type
Record (label :: Type)
with type
Record (label :: Type, forgottenLabel :: OtherType)
Type Directed Search
Otherwise known as "typed holes."
If you recall in Syntax/Basic Syntax/src/DataandFunctions/TypeDirectedSearch.md
, we can use typedirected search to
 help us determine what an entity's type is
 guide us in how to implement something
 see better ways to code something via type classes
As an example, let's say we have a really complicated function or type
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
a < computeA
b < computeB
c < (\a > (\c > doX c) <$> box a) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 8)
If we want to know what the type will be for doX
, we can rewrite that entity using a type direction search, ?doX
, and see what the compiler outputs:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
a < computeA
b < computeB
c < (\a > (\c > ?doX c) <$> box a) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 8)
If we're not sure what type a function outputs, we can precede the function with our search using ?name $ function
:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
a < computeA
b < computeB
c < (\a > (\c > ?help $ doX c) <$> box a) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 8)
If you encounter a problem or need help, this should be one of the first things you use.
Getting the Type of an Expression from the Compiler
This is known as "typed wildcards".
In a function body, wrapping some term with (term :: _)
will cause the compiler to infer the type for you.
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
a < computeA
b < computeB
c < (\w x > ((doX x) :: _)) <$> box a) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 8)
Getting the Type of a Function from the Compiler
There are two possible situations where this idea might help:
 You know how to write the body for a function but aren't sure what it's type signature is
 You're exploring a new unfamiliar library and are still figuring out how to piece things together. So, you attempt to write the body of a function but aren't sure what it's type signature will be.
In such cases, we can completely omit the type signature and the compiler will usually infer what it is for us:
 no type signature here for `f`,
 so the compiler will output a warning
 stating what its inferred type is
f = (\a > (\c > doX c) <$> box a) <$> (Box 5) <*> (Box 8)
However, the above is not always useful when one only wants to know what the type of either an argument or the return type. In such situations, one can use typed wildcards from above in the type signature:
doesX :: String > _ > Int
doesX str anotherString = length (concat str anotherString)
Determining why a type was inferred incorrectly
Sometimes, I wish we could have a 'unification trace' or a 'type inference trace'. I know the code I wrote works, but there's some mistake somewhere in my code that's making the compiler infer the wrong type at point X, which then produces the type inference problem much later at point Y. To solve Y, I need to fix the problem X, but I'm not sure where X is.
Here's an example:
type Rec = { a :: String }
f :: String > String
f theString = wrap (unwrap theString)
where
wrap :: String > Rec
wrap theString = { a: theString }
{
the mistake! Compiler says
Cannot match type
{ a :: String }
with type
{ a :: String, b :: String }
unwrap :: Rec > String
unwrap rec = rec.b
In the PureScript chatroom, garyb
mentioned passing the verboseerrors
flag to the compiler. This will output a LOT of information, but it's that or nothing. To do that, run this code:
spago build u verboseerrors
spago build u v
Could not match type Monad
with type Function (Argument > Monad a)
Whenever you get an error like this....
Error found:
in module Try
at src/example.purs:10:3  12:6 (line 10, column 3  line 12, column 6)
Could not match type
Effect
with type
Function (String > Effect Unit)
while trying to match type Effect Unit
with type (String > Effect Unit) > t0
while inferring the type of (log "Here's a message") log
in value declaration main
where t0 is an unknown type
It's because you forgot to add the do
keyword. Here's the code that produces the error:
main :: Effect Unit
main =  missing `do` keyword!
log "Here's a message"
log "Here's another message."
Improve Error Messages when using unsafePartial
to unPartial Functions
(This section assumes familiarity with the Design Patterns/Partial Functions/
folder)
Taken from safareli's comment in "When should you use primitive types instead of custom types?"", there might be times where you want to use a partial function to get or compute some value that might not be there. If one just uses unsafePartial $ <unsafeFunction>
, the error message will likely not be helpful:
 Don't do this.
foo :: forall a. Maybe a > a
foo mightBeHere =
 we assume that 'mightBeHere' is the "Just a" constructor
unsafePartial $ fromJust mightBeHere
sarafeli
's suggestion is to pattern match on the value and use unsafeCrashWith
instead to provide a much better error message in case your assumption is proven invalid.
foo :: forall a. Maybe a > a
foo mightBeHere = case mightBeHere of
Nothing > unsafeCrashWith "'mightBeHere' should be a valid 'a'"
Just v > v
Custom Type Errors
Prereqs for This Folder
To understand this folder's contents, you should read and be somewhat familiar with TypeLevel Syntax. If you haven't already done so, go read through that folder's contents.
Scope of This Folder
This folder will demonstrate how to write Custom Type Errors (i.e. custom compiler warnings and errors) and why one might find it useful. It provides the foundations for understanding why something happens in the next folder's code. This folder does not get deep into how to do typelevel programming. That will be covered later.
In this folder, we'll be using the infix aliases from purescripttypeleveleval. We won't be directly importing it here because it does not yet exist in the default package set (as of this writing).
01OverviewAPI.purs
module Debugging.CustomTypeErrors.OverviewAPI where
{
# Prim Special Submodules
Every Purescript project imports the Prim module by default:
https://pursuit.purescript.org/builtins/docs/Prim
This module defines `kind Type` and the types
for `Int`, `Array`, and `Function`.
In addition, the Prim module has sub module called "TypeError"
that is not imported by default. Within it, Prim defines a few
things for writing your own custom type warnings/errors.
Similar to what we did in the Syntax folder, we'll show the
valuelevel definitions of these typelevel types, instances, and functions
}
{
The following is commented out to prevent a compiler warning:
"import is redundant"
 new imports
import Prim.TypeError (
 typelevel type
kind Doc
 typelevel instances
, Text
, Quote
, Above
, Beside
 typelevel functions
, class Warn
, class Fail
)
}
data Doc_
= Text_ String  wraps a Symbol
 Quote_ String  the Type's name as a Symbol
 QuoteLabel_ String  Similar to Text but handles things differently
 Used particularly for 'labels', the 'keys'
 in rows/records (see functions file)
 Beside_ Doc_ Doc_  Similar to "left <> right" ("leftright") in that
 it places documents sidebyside. However, it's
 different in that these documents are aligned at
 the top.
 Above_ Doc_ Doc_  same as "top" <> "\n" <> "bottom" ("top\nbottom")
type Explanation = String
warn :: Explanation
warn = """
Usage:
 Constrain a type with Warn in a value/function declaration
 Constrain a type in a type class instance with Warn
Result:
If value/function is used, outputs a warning during compiletime
Compilation succeeds?:
Yes
Use Cases:
 "Soft" Deprecation  Indicate to users of library that this
function/value will be removed/changed in future
 Warning indicating developer/debug code should be removed
before production code is released
Does the REPL display it?:
No (as of this writing)
"""
fail :: Explanation
fail = """
Usage:
 Constrain a type with Fail in a value/function declaration
 Constrain a type in a type class instance with Fail
Result:
If instance is used, outputs an error during compiletime
Compilation succeeds?:
No
Use Cases:
 "Hard" Deprecation  Remove support for a value/function and
force users of library to migrate to new approach or
use a different value/function that does the same thing.
 Provide better error messages for specific type class instances
that cannot exist.
Does the REPL display it?:
Yes
"""
02Values.purs
module Debugging.CustomTypeErrors.Values where
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Show (show)
import Data.Unit (Unit)
import Data.Function (($))
import Control.Bind (discard)
import Prim.TypeError (Text, class Warn, class Fail)
warnFunction :: Warn
( Text "Deprecated! Use betterFunction instead"
) => Int > Int
warnFunction x = x
betterFunction :: Number
betterFunction = 5.0
failFunction :: Fail
( Text "Broken! Use betterFunction instead"
) => Int > Int
failFunction _ = 20
regularFunction :: Int > Int
regularFunction _ = 4
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log $ show $ regularFunction 8
log $ show $ warnFunction 3
 Uncomment the next line, save the file, run it, and see what happens
 log $ show $ failFunction 12
03Functions.purs
module Debugging.CustomTypeErrors.Functions where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Type.Proxy (Proxy(..))
import Prim.TypeError (Text, Quote, Above, Beside, QuoteLabel, class Warn, class Fail)
data Doc_
= Text_ String  wraps a Symbol
 Quote_ String  the Type's name as a Symbol
 QuoteLabel_ String  Similar to Text but handles things differently
 Used particularly for 'labels', the 'keys'
 in rows/records (see below)
 Beside_ Doc_ Doc_  Similar to "left <> right" ("leftright") in that
 it places documents sidebyside. However, it's
 different in that these documents are aligned at
 the top.
 Above_ Doc_ Doc_  same as "top" <> "\n" <> "bottom" ("top\nbottom")
 The following aliases are taken from purescripttypeleveleval:
 https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescripttypeleveleval/0.2.0/docs/Type.Eval
 I would use it and import them here, but it's not yet in the default package set
infixr 2 type Beside as <>
infixr 1 type Above as >
besideExample :: Warn
( Text "Beside lays out documents sidebyside, aligned at the top:"
> Text ""
> ( ( Text "A"
> Text "B"
) <> Text "C"
)
> Text ""
> ( Text "C" <> ( Text "A"
> Text "B"
)
)
) => Int
besideExample = 2
warnValue :: Warn
( Text "This warning appears only when you use this value or function"
> Text ""
> Text "The requested value of type, " <> Quote Int <> Text ","
> Text "is no longer something you should use!"
> Text ""
> Text "Use betterValue instead since it is of type " <> Quote Number
) => Int
warnValue = 5
betterValue :: Number
betterValue = 5.0
failValue :: Fail
( Text "This error only appears when you use this value"
> Text ""
> Text "Error: Value is no longer valid"
) => Int
failValue = 20
regularValue :: Int
regularValue = 4
 QuoteLabel vs Text
labelAsText :: forall l. Warn
( Text "Text Label " <> Text l
) => Proxy l > String
labelAsText _ = ""
labelAsQuote :: forall l. Warn
( Text "Quote Label " <> QuoteLabel l
) => Proxy l > String
labelAsQuote _ = ""
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log $ show regularValue
log $ show warnValue
log $ show besideExample
 Demonstrates the difference between Text and QuoteLabel
log $ show (labelAsText (Proxy :: Proxy "boo"))
log $ show (labelAsQuote (Proxy :: Proxy "boo"))
log $ show (labelAsText (Proxy :: Proxy "b\"oo"))
log $ show (labelAsQuote (Proxy :: Proxy "b\"oo"))
log $ show (labelAsText (Proxy :: Proxy "b o o"))
log $ show (labelAsQuote (Proxy :: Proxy "b o o"))
 Uncomment the next line, save the file, run it, and see what happens
 log $ show failValue
04TypeClassInstances.purs
module Debugging.CustomTypeErrors.TypeClassInstances where
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Show (show)
import Data.Unit (Unit)
import Data.Function (($))
import Prim.TypeError (Text, Above, class Warn, class Fail)
infixr 1 type Above as >
class ExampleClass a where
emitMessage :: a > String
instance ExampleClass Int where
emitMessage _ = "an integer I'm sure..."
data WarnType = WarnType
data FailType = FailType
instance Warn
( Text "No worries! This warning is supposed to happen!"
> Text ""
> Text "[Some warning message here...]"
) => ExampleClass WarnType where
emitMessage _ = "The message!"
instance Fail
( Text "Using this instance will cause code to fail"
) => ExampleClass FailType where
emitMessage _ = "This will never occur"
useInstanceOfExampleClass :: forall a. ExampleClass a => a > String
useInstanceOfExampleClass a = emitMessage a
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log $ show regularInstance
regularInstance :: String
regularInstance = useInstanceOfExampleClass 0
 Even though this is never used in main,
 it still emits a warning.
warnInstance :: String
warnInstance = useInstanceOfExampleClass WarnType
 Even though this is never used in main,
 it still emits a compiler error
 failInstance :: String
 failInstance = useInstanceOfExampleClass FailType
Debug Trace
Previously, we got around the "bind
outputs the same boxlike type it receives" restriction by using MonadEffect
. However, we also explained that ST
, the monad used to run a computation that uses local mutable state, did not have an instance for MonadEffect
. This decision is intentional.
When we run production code, we want to uphold this restriction. However, when we are debugging code, this restriction can be very annoying. Fortunately, the Debug package exists to help you use print debugging in any monadic context. You should use it when initially prototyping things. It should never appear in production code, nor as a solution for productionlevel logging. (We'll show how to do that in the Application Structure
folder).
WARNING: Debug
's functions are not always reliable when running concurrent code (i.e. Aff
based computations).
Compilation Instructions
Seeing the Custom Type Errors
The warnings that will appear when compiling this code only appear once. Once you have built the code, spago
will reuse the alreadycompiled JavaScript and thus won't retrigger these warnings. If you want to see them again, follow these instructions.
# Remove all previously compiled JavaScript
rm rf output/
# Now build the code to see the warnings.
spago build
Running the Examples
Use these commands
spago run m Debugging.Debug
spago run m Debugging.LocalState
01Debug.purs
 When you compile this file, it will output compiler warnings.
 If you wish to remove that noise, comment out everything below
 the "module" declaration.
module Debugging.Debug where
 Comment out everything below this line to prevent compiler warning.

import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Debug (spy, trace, traceM)
 Given a simple Box Monad
data Box a = Box a
 all type class instances are at the end of the file
 And a way to convert a Box computation into an Effect computation
runBox :: Box ~> Effect
runBox (Box a) = pure a
boxed4 :: Box Int
boxed4 = Box 4
printAndReturnTheValue :: Int > Int
printAndReturnTheValue x = spy "x" x
printMessageThenRunComputation :: String > (Unit > Int) > Int
printMessageThenRunComputation msg x = trace msg x
 When running this, you'll notice that the debug messages
 are outputted in a font color different than the normal output.
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
 spy
log $ show $ printAndReturnTheValue 5
 another way to do this
let _ = spy "four" 4
 trace
log $ show $ printMessageThenRunComputation "before computation" (\_ > 10)
log "Right now we are inside of the Effect monad context, \
\which means we CAN use the `log` function here."
value < runBox do
four < boxed4
 now we are inside of the Box monad context,
 which means we CANNOT use `log` here since
 it returns `Effect Unit`, not `Box Unit`
 Instead, we'll use traceM
traceM ("Four is: " <> show four)
pure (four + 8)
log $ "Value is: " <> show value
 Box's type class instances
instance Functor Box where
map f (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Apply Box where
apply (Box f) (Box a) = Box (f a)
instance Applicative Box where
pure a = Box a
instance Bind Box where
bind (Box a) f = f a
instance Monad Box
DebugWarning
Debug
uses Custom Type Errors to warn the developer when it is being used.
Let's examine it further since it provides an example for us to follow should we wish to do something similar in the future. The source code is here, but we'll provide type signatures for the parts we need below and explain their usage:
 See the copyright notice at the bottom of this file for this code:
  Nullary type class used to raise a custom warning for the debug functions.
class DebugWarning
instance Warn (Text "Debug usage") => DebugWarning
foreign import trace :: forall a b. DebugWarning => a > (Unit > b) > b
 same idea as 'trace' for all the other functions
In short, rather than writing function :: Warn (Text "Debug usage") => [function's type signature]
on every function, they use an empty type class whose sole instance adds this for every usage of that type class.
Copyright notice for the above code:
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2015 Gary Burgess
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
03LocalState.purs
 Now that we understand how `Debug.Trace` works, let's show
 what's going on in our previous local mutable state computation.

 When you compile this file, it will output compiler warnings due to
 usage of `Debug.Trace (traceM)`. If you wish to remove that noise,
 comment out every usage of `traceM` in this file.
module Debugging.LocalState where
import Prelude
import Control.Monad.ST as ST
import Control.Monad.ST.Ref as STRef
import Debug (traceM)
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "We will run some modifications on some local state \
\and then try to modify it out of scope."
log $ show $ ST.run do
box < STRef.new 0
x0 < STRef.read box
traceM $ "x0 should be 0: " <> show x0
_ < STRef.write 5 box
x1 < STRef.read box
traceM $ "x1 should be 5: " <> show x1
 Note: `STRef.modify_` doesn't exist.
newState < STRef.modify (\oldState > oldState + 1) box
x2 < STRef.read box
traceM $ "x2 should be 6: " <> show x2 <> "  newState should be 6: " <> show newState
value < STRef.modify' (\oldState > { state: oldState * 10, value: 30 }) box
x3 < STRef.read box
traceM $ "value should be 30: " <> show value
traceM $ "x3 should be 60: " <> show x3
let loop 0 = STRef.read box
loop n = do
_ < STRef.modify (_ + 1) box
loop (n  1)
loop 20
log "Attempting to access box here will result in a compiler error"
ConsoleBased Debugging
A library that may be useful to use when debugging is purescriptdebugger
(3.0.0
's source code & 2.0.0
's docs). This library's latest release is 3.0.0
, but the updated docs have not been pushed to Pursuit yet. I'm not sure what changed
I will not cover this library here (though I might later). I'm including it, so that you are aware of it in the future once we've covered more things.
Other Tips
This file includes tips I've seen people share in the PureScript chatroom:
How do you guys typically go about debugging runtime issues? Especially bad FFI interactions? Right now I end up using
Debug.Trace
pretty frequently. I’m trying to move toward a workflow where I can resolve more of these issues with automated testing and in the REPL. I think the REPL is probably the way to go for most logic issues in PS? However, if API definitions are wonky in the FFI then the REPL isn’t generally super useful since I’ll just get some error from deep in the bundle in some dependency typically.
From @kritzcreek
:
I use
Debug.Trace
and break points in the browser. In general, I minimize having to interact with the FFI. If you're crossing the boundary too often maybe you can change your design to move more into PS or isolate and group the FFI interactions more clearly. I rarely use the REPL at all, parcel or webpack reloading the webpage on change in my editor is fast enough for my feedback cycle needs
Collections and Loops
This folder will overview the purescriptfoldabletraversable
and purescriptfilterable
libraries. Together, these libraries provide most of the functions one would use when working with collections.
These two type classes are being overviewed because their concepts will arise later in the "Hello World" folder. Rather than explaining them there when we need them, we'll explain them here so that they are more familiar when we get to them there.
Foldable
Usage
Plain English names:
 Summarizeable
 Reducible
 FP version of the Iterator Pattern
Given
a boxlike type, `f`,
that stores zero or more `a` values
and
an initial value of type, `b`
and
a `Semigroup`/`Monoid`like function
that produces a `b` value if given an `a` and a `b` argument,
of which there are two versions
(
either `a > b > b`
or `b > a > b`
),
return a single value of type, `b` by
(first application) passing the initial `b` and initial `a` values into the function,
which produces the next `b` value,
(recursive application) passing the previouslycomputed `b` value with the next `a` value into the function
which produces the next `b` value,
which will eventually be the final `b` value returned
when there are no more `a` values
in the boxlike `f` type.
It enables:
 a way to reduce a
List
ofString
s into oneString
(the combination of all theString
s)  a way to reduce a
List
ofInt
s into oneInt
(the sum/product of all the ints)  a way to take a
List Int
and create aMap String Int
(each value is anInt
from the list and its key is the output ofshow int
)  a way to take a
List Int
and double eachInt
in the list (i.e. writeList
'sFunctor
instance by implementingmap
via this type class).
Definition
Code Definition
Don't look at its docs until after looking at the visual overview in the next section: Foldable
class (Functor f) => Foldable f where
foldMap :: forall a m. Monoid m => (a > m) > f a > m
foldr :: forall a b. (a > b > b) > b > f a > b
foldl :: forall a b. (b > a > b) > b > f a > b
Visual Overview
For a cleaner visual, see Drawing foldl
and foldr
foldl
This version creates a treelike structure of computations that starts evaluating immediately via function Binput A1
and continues evaluating towards the bottomright. Since each step evaluates immediately, this version is "stack safe."
(b > a > b) Binit //=== `f a` ===\\
   
   A1 A2 A3 
  \\=+===+===+===//
    
\ \ /  
\=========>   
 B2  
   
\ \ / 
\==========>  
 B3 
  
\ \ /
\==========> 
Boutput
foldr
This version creates a treelike structure of computations that doesn't start evaluating until it gets to the bottom right of the tree. Once it reaches the bottom right, it evaluates function A3 Binput
and then evaluates towards the topleft of the tree
Since each step towards the bottomright of the tree allocates a stack, this function is not always "stack safe".
Boutput
 <==========\
/ \ \
  
  
 B3 
  <=======\
 / \ \
   
  B2 
   <====\
  / \ \
    
//=+===+===+===\\  
 A1 A2 A3   
   
\\=== `f a` ===// Binit (a > b > b)
Examples
We'll implement instances for three types: Box a
, Maybe a
, and List a
. Each implementation will become more complicated that the previous one.
Box
's Instance
data Box a = Box a
 Box's implementation doesn't show the difference between `foldl` and `foldr`.
 Moreover, the initial `b` value isn't really necessary.
instance Foldable Box where
foldl :: forall a b. (b > a > b) > b > Box a > b
foldl reduceToB initialB (Box a) = reduceToB initialB a
foldr :: forall a b. (a > b > b) > b > Box a > b
foldr reduceToB initialB (Box a) = reduceToB a initialB
foldMap :: forall a m. Monoid m => (a > m) > Box a > m
foldMap aToMonoid (Box a) = aToMonoid a
Maybe
's instance
 Maybe's implementation doesn't show the difference between `foldl` and `foldr`.
 However, the initial `b` value is necessary
 because of the possible `Nothing` case.
instance Foldable Maybe where
foldl :: forall a b. (b > a > b) > b > Maybe a > b
foldl reduceToB initialB (Just a) = reduceToB initialB a
foldl _ initialB Nothing = initialB
foldr :: forall a b. (a > b > b) > b > Maybe a > b
foldr reduceToB initialB (Just a) = reduceToB a initialB
foldr _ initialB Nothing = initialB
 While we could implement this the same way as `Box`, let's reuse
 `foldl` to implement it
foldMap :: forall a m. Monoid m => (a > m) > Maybe a > m
foldMap aToMonoid maybe =
foldl (\b a > b <> (aToMonoid a)) mempty maybe
List
's instance
 Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil)
 1 : (Cons 2 Nil)
 1 : 2 : Nil
 same as [1, 2]
 In the below implementations, `op` stands for `operation`
instance Foldable List where
 Same as...
 ((((intialB `op` firstElem) `op` secondElem) `op` ...) `op` lastElem)
foldl :: forall a b. (b > a > b) > b > List a > b
foldl _ accumB Nil = accumB
foldl op initialB (head : tail) =
foldl op (op initialB head) tail
 Same as...
 (firstElem `op` (secondElem `op` (... `op` (lastElem `op` initialB))))
foldr :: forall a b. (a > b > b) > b > List a > b
foldr op accumB Nil = accumB
foldr op initialB (head : tail) =
op head (foldl op initialB tail)
 Unlike Box, reusing `foldl`/`foldr` is actually the cleaner way
 to implement `foldMap` for `List`.
foldMap :: forall a m. Monoid m => (a > m) > List a > m
foldMap aToMonoid list =
foldl (\b a > b <> (aToMonoid a)) mempty list
instance Functor List where
map f list =
 Due to stack safety, this is not how this is implemented
 but it communicates the same idea
foldr (\prevHead tail > (f prevHead) : tail) Nil list
General Usage Patterns
We'll see more of this in the upcoming overview of the derived functions. However, foldl
and its corresponding members tend to follow a few patterns:
reduceAllAsIntoOneAValue = foldl reduce initial foldableType
where
iniital =  a type class value or hardcoded value
 like `mempty` or `true` or `Data.Ordering.LT`, etc.
reduce =  some type class function like `<>` or `&&` or `+`, etc.
 Note: sometimes this function will change the `a` to
 a different type before the function receives it as an argument
 allows this type of computation: "a1 `operation` a2 `operation` a3"
thereIsNoInitialB_iterateThroughAllAValues =
let record = foldl reduce initial foldableType
in record.value
where
initial = { isFirstRun: true, value: initialValue }
reduce b a =
{ isFirstRun: false, value:
if b.isFirstRun then a else (realReduceFunction b.value a)
}
buildHigherKindedData = foldl build initial foldableType
where
initial = Map.empty
build mapSoFar nextValue =
let
key = show nextValue
value = someComplicatedFunction nextValue
in
Map.add mapSoFar key value
forEachA_doSomeComputation = foldl compute initial foldableType
where
initial :: Effect Unit
initial = pure unit
compute :: a > Effect Unit
compute _ nextValue = do
someValue < computeUsing nextValue
allIsGood < doSomethingElse someValue
pure unit
Laws
None
Derived Functions
We'll overview the derived functions by first grouping them into a few categories, and then providing a general definition for what each one does.
Default implementations for the members of the Foldable
type class
foldMap
can be implemented using either foldl
or foldr
. Likewise, both foldl
and foldr
can be implemented using foldMap
.
Thus, once one has implemented one of these sets, they can use a default implementation to implement the other set:
 if
foldl
andfoldr
both are implemented, you can implementfoldMap
by using one of the two function below:foldMapDefaultL
which usesfoldl
under the hoodfoldMapDefaultR
which usesfoldr
under the hood
 if
foldMap
is implemented, you can use the functions below to implementfoldl
andfoldr
:
Use another type class to reduce multiple a
values into one value.
 via
Semigroup
'sappend
/<>
function:fold
==a1 <> a2 <> ... <> aLast <> mempty
intercalate
==a1 <> separator <> a2 <> separator <> a3 ...
fold
but with a separator value appended inbeteeena
values.
surround
==value <> a1 <> value <> a2 <> value ...
 The inverse of intercalate
surroundMap
==value <> (aToMonoid a1) <> value <> (aToMonoid a2) <> value ...
 Same as
surround
, but thea
can be changed tob
before being appended tovalue
.
 Same as
 via
HeytingAlgebra
'sconj
/&&
ordisj
/
functions.  via
Semiring
splus
/+
ormultiply
/*
functions:  via
Alt
'salt
/<>
andPlus
'sempty
functions (very similar to theSemigroup
andMonoid
relationship):
Determine information about the Foldable
type based on the a
values it contains / get an a
value
Note: the below functions are not as performant as they could be because they will iterate through all of the a
values in the Foldable
type, even if the desired information is found as soon as possible when testing the first a
value. In other words, these functions do not "short circuit".
 via
Eq
'seq
/==
andnotEq
//=
functions:  Get the index of an
a
value within theFoldable
type:  Get first element which satisfies some predicate:
 via
Ord
'scompare
function and its derivations (e.g.<
,>
, etc.):  Calculate the length or emptiness of the type:
Execute a "for loop" that runs an applicative/monadic computation (e.g. Effect
) using each a
in the Foldable
type
In the Philosophical Foundations folder, we used a recursive function to implement a "for loop." I mentioned there that one could implement the same thing using a type class called Foldable
. It is these last three functions that show how to do that.
In JavaScript, we might write something like this:
var array = [1, 2, 3];
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
var elem = array[i];
console.log(elem);
}
In PureScript, we would write the same thing via Foldable
:
 *
for_
==for_ array log
 *
traverse_
==traverse_ log array
 Same as
for_
but the function comes first
 Same as
 *
sequence_
==sequence_ [ log "1", log "2", log "3" ]
 Same as
for_
but thea
values are applicative computations that have yet to be executed
 Same as
 Note: that each of these computations must output only
Unit
.Traversable
, which is covered next, removes that limitation.
A related function is foldM
, which allows one to run a monadic computation multiple times where the next computation depends on the output of the previous computation. As the docs indicate, this function is not generally stacksafe.
Here's an example:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
int < randomInt 1 10
output < foldM recursiveComputation 1 [1, 2, 3]
log $ "Output was: " <> show output
where
recursiveComputation initialOrAccumulatedValue nextValueInArray = do
anotherInt < randomInt 1 nextValueInArray
pure (anotherInt + initialOrAccumulatedValue)
... which is the same as writing...
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
int < randomInt 1 10
 begin loop
 initialOrAccumulatedValue = 1; nextValueInArray = 1
anotherInt1 < randomInt 1 1
accmulatedValue1 < pure (anotherInt1 + 1)
 initialOrAccumulatedValue = 1; nextValueInArray = 2
anotherInt2 < randomInt 1 2
accmulatedValue2 < pure (anotherInt2 + accmulatedValue1)
 initialOrAccumulatedValue = 1; nextValueInArray = 1
anotherInt3 < randomInt 1 3
output < pure (anotherInt3 + accmulatedValue2)
 end loop
log $ "Output was: " <> show output
Traversable
Usage
While Foldable
allowed us to use things like for_
, traverse_
, and sequence_
, these three functions restricted computations to only outputting Unit
. Traversable
removes that restriction and stores each computation's output in the same Traversable
type. Moreover, its derived functions enable a few other nice things.
Plain English names:
 BoxSwap (sequence)
 ForEach (traverse)
Sequence
Use Case 1: Swap the box types
I have Array (Maybe a)
. I need Maybe (Array a)
. The boxlike types, Array
and Maybe
need to swap places.
sequence [Just 1, Just 2, Nothing] == Nothing  because the array had at least 1 `Nothing`.
sequence [Just 1, Just 2, Just 8] == Just [1, 2, 8]  because the array only had `Just`s.
Use Case 2: run all computations in a Traversable
type and store their outputs in the same Traversable
type
This boxswapping property is quite useful as the below example illustrates.
We'll start with sequence first. I could write:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let produceInt = randomInt 1 10
output1 < produceInt
output2 < produceInt
output3 < produceInt
output4 < produceInt
 ...
log $ "Generated Ints were: " <> show [output1, output2, output3, output4]
The above code works. However, if I want to add a fifth one, I need to add another outputN < produceInt
line and add the outputN
to the array.
Instead, I could write
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
outputArray < sequence
[ produceInt
, produceInt
, produceInt
, produceInt
 ...
]
log $ "Generated Ints were: " <> show outputArray
Traverse: convert each a
value in the Traversable
type into a computation, run all computations, and store their outputs in the same Traversable
type
I could write:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let produceInt = \maxBound > randomInt 1 maxBound
output1 < produceInt 8
output2 < produceInt 20
output3 < produceInt 40
output4 < produceInt 90
 ...
log $ "Generated Ints were: " <> show [output1, output2, output3, output4]
The same problems as before arise. Instead, I could write
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let produceInt = \maxBound > randomInt 1 maxBound
outputArray < traverse produceInt [8, 20, 40, 90]
log $ "Generated Ints were: " <> show outputArray
Definition
class (Functor t, Foldable t) <= Traversable t where
traverse :: forall a b m. Applicative m => (a > m b) > t a > m (t b)
sequence :: forall a m. Applicative m => t (m a) > m (t a)
See its docs: Traversable
Laws
None, but the members should be compatible in the following ways:
traverse f xs = sequence (f <$> xs)
sequence = traverse identity
Derived Functions
Default implementations for the members of the Traversable
type class
traverse
can be implemented using sequence
and sequence
can be implemented using traverse
. Similar to Foldable
, once one has implemented one of these when writing a Traversable
instance for a data type, they can use a default implementation to implement the other:
 if
traverse
is implemented, you can implementsequence
by usingsequenceDefault
 if
sequence
is implemented, you can implementtraverse
by usingtraverseDefault
for
is traverse
with its arguments flipped
Using the same traverse
example as above:
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
outputArray < for [8, 20, 40, 90] \maxBound > randomInt 1 maxBound
log $ "Generated Ints were: " <> show outputArray
Outputting each step's accumulated value at that time for a foldl
/foldr
computation
The downside of using foldl
/foldr
is that you only know the foldl
/foldr
computation's final output. You don't know how that output was reached / what each step's accumulated value was.
foldl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
15  <= know the output, but don't know how we reached that conclusion
 What was the output of `accumulatedValueAtThatPoint + 2`?
In such cases, you use
foldl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
15  <= know the output, but don't know how we reached that conclusion
scanl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
[1, 3, 6, 10, 15]  <= now we can see how that conclusion was reached
 if traversing from the left
scanr (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] ==
[15, 14, 12, 9, 5]  <= now we can see how that conclusion was reached
 if traversing from the right
In other words, the value at index n
in the outtputted array is the output of passing the value at index n
in the input array and the accumulated value at that point in time into the folding function (i.e. +
). Using the scanr
example, the input array's index 2 value (i.e. 3
) and the accumulated value at that time (the output array's index 3 value, 9
) were both passed into the folding function, +
, to produce the output array's index 2 value (i.e. 12
).
Outputting both the output and each step's accumulated value at that time for a foldl
/foldr
computation
The downside of using scanl
/scanr
is that we don't have access to both the final output of the fold and the path it took to get there.
foldl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
15  <= know the output, but don't know the path of how we got there
scanl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
[1, 3, 6, 10, 15]  <= know the path, but not the output
In such cases, you can use
foldl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
15  <= know the output, but don't know the path of how we got there
scanl (+) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
[1, 3, 6, 10, 15]  <= know the path, but not the output
type Accum s a = { accum :: s, value :: a }
mapAccumL (\accumulationSoFar nextValue >
let outputAtThisStep = accumulationSoFar + nextValue
in { accum: outputAtThisStep, value: outputAtThisStep}
) 0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ] ==
{accum: 15, value: [1, 3, 6, 10, 15]}  <= know both output and path
You can see how mapAccumL
/mapAccumR
enables you to write even complex computations fairly easily. Still, these two functions are more expressive than just a combining the outputs of foldl
and scanl
in one computation, since they allow for more types to be used in the computation.
Below is a nonsensical example demonstrating this:
import Prelude
import Data.Traversable (mapAccumL)
import Data.Traversable.Accum (Accum)
import Data.Foldable (sum, length)
import Data.Array (snoc)
 type Accum s a = { accum :: s, value :: a }
nonsensicalExample :: Accum (Array Int) (Array Int)
nonsensicalExample = mapAccumL reducer [] [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
where
reducer :: Array Int > Int > Accum (Array Int) Int
reducer accumulationSoFar nextValue =
let
arrayLength = length accumulationSoFar
arraySum = sum accumulationSoFar  foldl (+) 0 accumulationSoFar
in { accum: accumulationSoFar `snoc` arrayLength `snoc` arraySum
, value: show $ nextValue + arraySum
}
produces { accum: [0,0,2,0,4,2,6,8,8,22], value: ["1", "2", "5", "12", "27"] }
Their Variations
Once you get how Foldable
and Traversable
works, the following variations should be pretty easy to grasp
Variants that include the a
value's index
The same as their base type classes, but an additional Int
argument represent the a
's index in f
is included in the map
/fold
/traverse
functions.
Variants where the f
cannot be empty
The same as their base type classes, but the f
type must always have at least 1 a
value. As a result, the Applicative
requirement in the type class' functions can be downgraded to just Apply
:
Variants where the f
can have 2 types
The same as their base type classes, but as though it was f (Tuple a b)
rather than f a
:
PureScript Filterable
The following type classes come from purescriptfilterable
.
Compactable
class Compactable f where
compact :: forall a. f (Maybe a) > f a
separate :: forall l r. f (Either l r) > { left :: f l, right :: f r }
catMaybes
is a function that removes all Nothing
s in an Array
. compact
and separate
generalize this idea to work across more f
types and works for both Maybe
and Either
:
catMaybes [Just 1, Nothing] == [1]
compact [Just 1, Nothing] == [1]
compact (Just 1 : Just 2 : Nothing : Nil) == 1 : 2 : Nil
separate [Left 1, Left 2, Right 3, Right 4] == { left: [1, 2], right: [3, 4] }
Filterable
Filterable
generalizes the concept of Array.filter
and Array.partition
to work arcross more f
types.
class (Compactable f, Functor f) <= Filterable f where
filter :: forall a.
(a > Boolean) > f a > f a
filterMap :: forall a b.
(a > Maybe b) > f a > f b
partition :: forall a.
(a > Boolean) > f a > { no :: f a, yes :: f a }
partitionMap :: forall a l r.
(a > Either l r) > f a > { left :: f l, right :: f r }
Witherable
Witherable
is the same as Traversable
's traverse
but either removes the resulting Nothing
s like compact
or distinguishes the Left
s and the Rights
like separate
.
 traverse :: forall a b m. Applicative m =>
 (a > m b ) > t a > m (t b)
class (Filterable t, Traversable t) <= Witherable t where
wither :: forall m a b. Applicative m =>
(a > m (Maybe b) ) > t a > m (t b)
wilt :: forall m a l r. Applicative m =>
(a > m (Either l r)) > t a > m { left :: t l, right :: t r }
Its derived functions, wilted
and withered
, use sequence
instead of traverse
.
 sequence :: forall a m. Applicative m =>
 t (m a ) > m (t a)
withered :: forall t m x. Witherable t => Applicative m =>
t (m (Maybe x) ) > m (t x)
wilted :: forall t m l r. Witherable t => Applicative m =>
t (m (Either l r)) > m { left :: t l, right :: t r }
Unfoldable
Usage
Plain English names:
 Generator
 FP version of a generic "while" loop
Given
a function, `f`,
that uses the next `b` value to generate
either the case that ends the while loop, `Nothing`
or the case that continues the while loop, `Just`
which wraps a `Tuple` so that it can return
the first or next value, `a`, that gets "put into" the `t` container
and
the next `b` value that is then used by `f`
to run the next iteration in the loop
and
the first `b` value
return a container/collection, `t`, that stores all the `a` values
that were generated by the `f` function,
which may "contain" 0 or many `a` values.
It enables:
 a way to generate a
List
ofInts
s where eachInt
in theList
is one greater than the previousInt
 a way to run the same
Effect
/Aff
computation multiple times until a given condition is true
Definition
Code Definition
Don't look at its docs until after looking at the visual overview in the next section: Unfoldable
 We'll ignore the `Unfoldable1` superclass for now..
class Unfoldable1 t <= Unfoldable t where
unfoldr :: forall a b. (b > Maybe (Tuple a b)) > b > t a
Visual Overview
Examples
We'll implement an instance for List a
.
List
's Instance
data List a = Nil  Cons a
instance Unfoldable List where
unfoldr :: forall a b. (b > Maybe (Tuple a b)) > b > List a
unfoldr f initialB = case f initialB of
Nothing > Nil
Just (Tuple a nextB) > Cons a (unfoldr f nextB)
Laws
None
Derived Functions
Overview of Possible Functions for f
The only part of unfoldr f initialB
we can hardcode in a derived function is the f
function. There are three different functions we could use for f
:
 We'll use this type alias in the next couple of sections
type UnfoldrFunction a b = b > Maybe Tuple a b
 case 1
alwaysReturnJust :: forall a b. a > b > UnfoldrFunction a b
alwaysReturnJust a b = \initialB > Just (Tuple a b)
 case 2
alwaysReturnNothing :: forall a b. UnfoldrFunction a b
alwaysReturnNothing _ = Nothing
 case 3
itDepends :: forall a b. UnfoldrFunction a b
itDepends =  possibilities are shown later
Case Name  Derived Function Name  Result 

case 1  !!! 😱😱😱 !!!  Runtime Error: Infinite loop! 
case 2  none  Produces an empty t 
case 3  replicate , replicateA , and fromMaybe  see below overviews of each function 
Case 1 functions always produce a runtime error due to creating an infinite loop. They will appear in two ways:
 obvious because Just is always returned
example1 = unfoldr (const Just (Tuple 0 0)) 0
 Not as obvious in situations where
 there are a lot of possible conditions
example2 =
unfoldr f 0
where
f nextB
 nextB < 0 = Just (Tuple 1 2)
 nextB > 0 = Just (Tuple 2 4)
 nextB == 0 = Just (Tuple 8 4)
 otherwise = Nothing
 ^ this case never occurs
Case 3 Functions
Using a countdown or countup function to do something n
many times
countUp :: forall a. Int > UnfoldrFunction a Int
countUp limit = \nextInt >
if nextInt >= limit then Nothing
else Just (Tuple aValue (nextInt + 1))
countDown :: forall a. UnfoldrFunction a Int
countDown = \nextInt >
if nextInt <= 0 then Nothing
else Just (Tuple aValue (nextInt  1))
These kinds of functions are used in the following derived functions:
replicate
 Add the samea
value to at
containerx
number of times.replicateA
 Run the same applicativebased computationx
number of times and store their results in thet
container.
Converting a Maybe
into another type that has an Unfoldable
instance
Unfoldable1
This is the same as Unfoldable
except the returned t
value must always have at least 1 a
value. As a result, it's actually harder to find a data type that can only implement Unfoldable1
but can't implement Unfoldable
.
Definition
Code Definition
class Unfoldable1 t where
unfoldr1 :: forall a b. (b > Tuple a (Maybe b)) > b > t a
The only difference between Unfoldable
and Unfoldable1
is the type signature for f
. In both cases, the b
value is inside of a Maybe
:
 Unfoldable
f :: forall a b. b > Maybe (Tuple a b)
 Unfoldable1
f :: forall a b. b > Tuple a (Maybe b)
Laws
None
Derived Functions
Parallels to Unfoldable
Concept  Unfoldable ( t can be empty)  Unfoldable1 ( t can't be empty) 

Produce a t value  none  singleton 
Add an a n many times to a t container  replicate  replicate1 
Run an applicativebased computation n many times and store the results in a t container  replicateA  replicate1A 
Convert Maybe a to t a  fromMaybe  possible, but not implemented 
Unfoldable1
does not have a version of fromMaybe
included, but I believe it is possible if one places a Monoid
constraint on a
and uses mempty
when receiving a Nothing
case.
Specific to Unfoldable1
Closing Thoughts
StackSafe Recursive Functions
At this point, you should read through the Design Patterns/Stack Safety.md
file. That file covers the two other kinds of loops: recursive loops and Effect
based loops like whileE
, forE
, and untilE
.
When to Use It? Array vs List
Hello. When should I use Array and when List?
It depends on which operations you want to do. Any update on an array is
Ө(n)
but random lookup isO(1)
. Lists have efficient operations at the front, and everything else isO(n)
. Array updates copy all other elements, resulting in twice the memory usage, while for most list operations the result and the source share part of the list. However, lists use a less compact layout in memory.Rules of thumb: if you create the sequence once and read it many times, use an array. Folds over arrays are faster, length is constant time and lookup is constant time. If you want to constantly manipulate the structure, especially at the front, use a list.
If your number of elements is very small (i.e.
n
is bounded), try both and measure. Array might in many cases be faster for few elements, even with random updates. Mostly because cloning of arrays is implemented directly in V8, whereas rebuilding lists is done with many many PureScript operations.
See Typeclass abstractions to use for data structures. For algebraic graphs, consider using purescriptalga
.
Application Structure
Prerequisites:
 You should understand what "smart constructors" are (see
Design Patterns
folder) and how they work
The upcoming folders will explain
 a small explanation on the onion architecture / 3Layer Haskell Cake concepts
 an overview of what MTL and Free/Run are and how they work conceptually
 how to structure an FP program via MTL and Free/Run
 folders starting with
1
contain heavilycommented examples of basic programs using these application architecture styles. When learning one particular style, you should look at these programs for what an 'endresult' looks like using that style as well as how it compares to other styles. We'll start with the simplest "hello world" program that uses only one effect and write programs that use more and more effects/capabilities.
These will later be used to write programs in the Projects
folder that run in Node via the console and/or in the Browser via Halogen.
In the functional paradigm, programs are structured in such a way that they look very similar to something called the "onion architecture." The below videos are optional watching. Watch them for a clearer idea of what "onion architecture" is:
Another optional video to watch: Functional Architecture  The Pits of Success. It explains that FP naturally pushes developers towards this architecture whereas other languages push developers away from it.
When we structure our code according to the below table, it provides a number of benefits
 topdown domaindriven design: your data types and your function's type signatures are often your alwaysuptodate documentation
 "impure" computations (i.e. computations that do things like state manipulation, reading from a file, network activities) are expressed as a "pure" computation, making them much easier to test
 "Platforms" (i.e. frameworks, databases, etc.) can easily be swapped out with other newer platforms without changing any "business logic" code or potentially introducing regressions
Layer Level  Onion Architecture Term  General idea 

Layer 4  Core  Strong types with welldefined properties and their pure, total functions that operate on them 
Layer 3  Domain  the "business logic" code which uses "effects," impure computations that are expressed in a pure way 
Layer 2  API  the "production" or "test" monad which "links" these pure effects/capabilties to their impure implementations 
Layer 1  Infrastructure  the platformspecific framework/libraries we'll use to implement some special effects/capabilities (i.e. Node.ReadLine (terminalbased programs), Halogen /React (webbased UIs)) 
Layer 0  Machine Code (no equivalent onion term)  the "base" monad that runs the program (e.g. production: Effect /Aff ; test: Identity /Trampoline ) 
To get a general idea for the concept this folder is going to try to teach:
 Watch the second half of Code Reuse in PureScript: Functions, Type Classes, and Interpreters and focus on the following section:
 'Which code is more reusable' (45:28  50:29):
 Final Encoding = Provide an implementation as an argument = monad transformers (what we cover first in this folder)
 Initial Encoding = Interpret a result =
Free
monad (what we cover second in this folder)
 'Which code is more reusable' (45:28  50:29):
 Optional reading: Final tagless encodings have little to do with typeclasses
Another learning resource that is still a workinprogress but which will explain more than this work is 'Functional Design and Architecture':
A Word of Thanks
While trying to learn this myself, I benefited from looking at the code in stepchownfun's BSD3 licensed project, effects
, as a guide when I did not completely understand something myself.
00ABadProgram.purs
module BadProgram where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Effect.Random (randomInt)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
log "This is an example of a program that is written in an FP language, \
\but which is terribly structured. Why? Because it's impossible to test \
\or otherwise prove that the code works correctly. All of its pure \
\business logic is intermixed with impure code that makes the \
\program work."
initialState < randomInt 10 20
int2 < randomInt 5 20
int3 < randomInt 5 30
let nextState = initialState + int2 * int3 / initialState
int4 < randomInt 200 900
int5 < randomInt 45 80
int6 < randomInt 2 3
let finalState = nextState * int6 * int5  int4 + initialState
log $ "The final output of the program was: " <> show finalState
{
There's a few issues with this program as it is currently written:
First, it's hard to test. How would you test this program to ensure
it works properly?
Maybe we want to guarantee that the code will always produce
a value that is even. Since all of our functions (i.e. the stuff
we do before storing the next state) receive random integers,
how could we ensure these functions are defined correctly?
Second, this program does not tell us whether an error can occur
and, if so, where such an error would appear.
Third, what if we wanted to use a different random number generator
than the one provided via `Effect.Random (randomInt)`? Let's say
the first time we run the program, we do want to use 'randomInt.'
If so, then this works. However, let's say the next time we run
this program, we want it to use something more complex. Well,
we don't have an easy way to quickly swap out a random number generator
without changing our business logic.
Such problems as these will be fixed/improved if we structure our FP
programs using Modern FP Architecture that is covered in this folder.
}
Monads, Effects, and Capabilities
Monads represent sequential computation via bind
/>>=
: "do X, and once finished, do Y". In our previous example/explanation from Hello World/Prelude/ControlFlow/How the Computer Executes FP Programs.md
, we implied that Box
could be used to "compute" something. In that example, however, it merely acted as a wrapper around values and functions. When we covered Effect
and Aff
in their respective folder, we saw that conceptually they operated very similar to Box
.
Still, our Box
/Effect
/Aff
examples did not make it clear how Monad
s could be a "computation." While bind
/>>=
insures that one computation occurs before another (i.e. sequential computation), it does not define what kinds of computation are done. Thus, we must explain what "effects"/"capabilities" are.
For the rest of this folder, we'll use the terms, "effects" and "capabilties," interchangeably. Lowercased "effect" refers to something different than the Effect
monad.
Effects / Capabilities
To understand what we mean by "effects" (and due to licenserelated things), read through the first two sentences of Monad transformers, free monads, mtl, laws and a new approach, then continue reading this page.
Examples of Effects / Capabilities
Capabilities can be grouped together into type class functions that define computations which bind
executes in a sequential manner. These type classes are specialized; they are designed to do one thing very very well.
So what kind of "capabilities" can we have? Let's now give some examples via the table below:
When we want a type of computation (effect) that...  ... we expect to use functions named something like ...  ... which are best abstracted together in a type class called... 

Provides for later usage a readonly value/function that may change between different program runs (e.g. "settings" values; dependency injection) 
 MonadAsk 
Modifies the state of a data structure (e.g. changing the nth value in a list) 
 MonadState 
Returns a computation's output and additional data that is generated during the computation  MonadTell  
Stops computation because of a possible error (e.g. "file does not exist")    MonadThrow 
Deals with "callback hell" (e.g. deinvert inversion of control)    MonadCont 
When we want to extend the functionality of...  ... with the ability to...  ... we can use its extension type class called... 

MonadAsk  Modify the readonly value for one computation (e.g. makeFontSizeMoreAccessible getFontSize displayPage )  MonadReader 
MonadTell  Modify or use the additional nonoutput data before completing a computation  MonadWriter 
MonadThrow  Catch and handle the error that was thrown (e.g. create the missing file)  MonadError 
Modeling Effects
In this folder, we'll only cover MTL
/ReaderT Design Pattern
and Free
/Run
. The article to which we referred above overviews more ideas, but that is not our current focus. It might be worth returning to it after one has read through the rest of this folder.
Composing Monads
As we explained previously, bind
/>>=
's type signature forces one to only return the same Box
like monad type that is used in bind:
bind :: forall a. f a > ( a > f b) > f b
bind :: forall a. Box a > ( a > Box b ) > Box b
bind (Box 4) (\four > Box (show four)) == Box "4"
In other words, if we use one monad, we cannot use any other monads. So, how do we get around this limitation?
We saw the same problem earlier when we wanted to run an Effect
monad inside of an Aff
monad. We fixed it by "lifting" the Effect
monad into the Aff
monad via a NaturalTransformation
/~>
. This was abstracted into a type class specific for Effect ~> someOtherMonad
in MonadEffect
.
MTL
and Free
use different approaches to solving this problem and its solution is what creates the Onion Architecturelike idea we mentioned before. As we saw earlier in Nate's video in this folder's ReadMe, mtl
is the "Final Encoding" style and Free
/Run
is the "Initial Encoding" style.
The following ideas are quick overviews of each approach. Their terminology and exact details will be explained in their upcoming folder. It is not meant to be clearly understandable at first.
MTL Approach
Monad Transformers are thus named because they "transform" some other monad by augmenting it with additional functions. One monad (e.g. Box
) can only use bind
and pure
to do sequential computation. However, we can "transform" Box
, so that it now has statemanipulating functions like get
/set
/modify
. "MTL" refers to the original "Monad Transformers Library" (I believe).
In the MTL
approach, one models the above effects using functions (we'll show how later). Since monad transformers augment some "base" monad, it creates a stacklike picture (read from bottom to top):
BaseMonad
^
 augments

Pure MonadState
Since each function is a different monadic type, they cannot be used within the same monadic context in do notation
. Thus, one gets around this monadcomposition problem by creating a "stack" of nested monad transformers (i.e. functions). Following the previous idea, we can define something similar to a NaturalTransformation
that "lifts" the effects of one monadic function (e.g. a function that implements MonadReader
) into another monadic function (e.g. a function that implements MonadState
), which augments the base monad. Using a visual, it produces this diagram (read from bottom to top):
BaseMonad
^
 augments

Pure MonadState_TargetMonad
^
 gets lifted into

Pure MonadReader_SourceMonad
Generalizing this idea, we must ultimately create a "stack" of these functionbased monadtransformers. Using a visual, it produces this diagram (read from bottom to top):
BaseMonad
^
 augments

Pure MonadState
^
 gets lifted into

Pure MonadWriter
^
 gets lifted into

Pure MonadReader
This idea is at the heart of the type class called MonadTrans
. Again, you should feel somewhat confused right now and a bit overwhelmed. However, we'll refer to these ideas later to help explain why we make some of the design choices that we do. By the end of this folder, this will all make sense.
Free
In the Free
approach, one models the above effects using data structures (again, we'll show how later). Essentially, one uses domainspecific languages (DSLs) created via data structures to define an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST). Such trees describe computations but do not run them. Later on, an AST is "interpreted" (via a NaturalTransformation
/~>
) into a final base monad that actually runs the computation. Using a visual, it produces this diagram (read top to bottom):
Pure HighLevel Language

 gets interpreted into

\ /
Base Monad
Due to how interpreters work, one can define highlevel ASTs that are interpreted into lowerlevel ASTs before being run by a base monad. Using a visual, it produces this diagram (read from bottom to top):
Pure AST via HighLevel Language

 gets interpreted into

\ /
Pure AST via MediumLevel Language

 gets interpreted into

\ /
Pure AST via LowLevel Language

 gets interpreted into

\ /
Base Monad
MTL
This folder does 5 things:
 walks the reader through the
Function
monad and how to read itsdo notation
and how functions can become monad transformers. At the end, we'll describe the whole point of using monad transformers.  walks the reader through the problems that led us to define the
MonadState
type class and explains why its function's type signature is defined that way. We'll use this idea to teach the general idea behind all the other monad transformers  overviews each monad transformer
 explains what problem
MonadTrans
solves and how the 'monad transformer stack' works See Using Monad Transformers without Understanding Them and its corresponding repo: https://github.com/JordanMartinez/pureconftalk
 explains the limitations of monad transformers
 overviews the
ReaderT design pattern
. At the end, we'll clarify when to use "monad stacks" and when to use theReaderT design pattern
.
Explaining the Name
Monad Transformers are thus named because they "transform" some other monad by augmenting it with additional capabilities. One monad (e.g. Box
) can only use bind
and pure
to do sequential computation. However, we can "transform" Box
, so that it now has statemanipulating functions like get
/set
/modify
. Purescript has defined all of these in the library called purescripttransformers
.
Foundations
Many people find it very difficult to understand how Monad Transformers actually work. I believe it's because new learners are exposed to too many new things at once, so that they get overwhelemed and likely don't understand why they don't understand.
Rather than jumping into an explanation of what monad transformers are, I'm going to build the necessary scaffolding to make understanding them easier. At the very end, I'll begin to show what problem they solve.
In short, monad transformers make it easier to adhere to the Onion Architecture, so that one can easily test and run their business logic by swapping out the "infrastructure" used. For example, my random number game can use the Terminal environment to allow the player to input their guesses when I am actually running the program. If I want to test my program's business logic, I can "simulate" the user's guesses in a test environment.
In both cases, the same business logic is used, and adjusting it will affect both the realworld use of it and the tests. In other words, there is no 'syncing' problem here between the real business logic that runs my code and the business logic I test.
Folder's Contents
In this folder, we'll show that a Function
can be a Monad and then show how to convert it into a Monad Transformer.
At the very end, we'll summarize why monad transformers are useful and give an overview of how they work.
The Function Monad
A Refresher on Monads
Via the Box
type, we originally learned what a Monad
even is. To refresh our memory, a data type can be called a Monad
if it can implement a lawabiding instance for the Monad
type class. We then used the Box
type to introduce "do notation," which desugars into nested bind
/>>=
calls.
We later showed that using other monadic types like Maybe
, Either
, and List
led to different control flows. Maybe
led to a nested ifthenelse statement. Either
was similar but returned something when an error occurred. List
produced a nested for
loop.
However, we never stopped to consider the data type, Function
. When we reexamine the Function
data type, we'll see that it's naturally a Monad
.
Reviewing Function
as a Data Type
Putting it into syntax, Function
is defined like this:
data Function a b =  implementation
infix ? Function as >
 Thus, when we write this:
intToString :: Int > String
intToString _ = "a string"
 It desguars to this:
intToString :: Function Int String
intToString _ = "a string"
Implementing the Monad
Type Class Hierarchy's Functions
Let's start implement instances for these type classes. For now, take my word for it that these implementations satisfy the laws of their respective type classes.
Functor
Initial Problems
Let's look at Functor
. It's type signature looks like this.
class Functor f where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > f a > f b
This creates the first problem: Functor
expects a higherkinded type, f
, that only takes one type. For example, Box a
only takes one type. However, Function a b
takes two types. So, how can this be resolved? We must assume that Function a b
already has its first type. For example...
data Function a b =  implementation
noTypesDefined :: forall a b. Function a b
noTypesDefined =  implementation
oneTypeDefined :: forall b. Function Int b
oneTypeDefined =  implementation
allTypesDefined :: Function Int Int
allTypesDefined =  implementation
To make Function
higherkinded by only one type, and not two, we should use something like oneTypeDefined
above:
class Functor (Function inputType) where
Implementing map
Getting back to the problem at hand, here's the type signature for Function's map
implementation with very helpful names:
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType
It should seem pretty obvious how this gets implemented. Let's walk through this slowly.
map
returns a new function whose input isinput
. So, let's use an inline function to do that:
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType
map originalToNew f = (\input > { remaining body of function } )
 Since
f
is the only function that can "receive" a value of type,input
, we have to pass that value intof
.f
will produceoriginalOutput
, so let's store that in a let binding:
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType
map originalToNew f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f input
in { remaining body of function } )
 Since
originalToNew
is the only function that can "receive" a value of type,originalOutput
, we have to pass the value outputted byf
into that function.originalToNew
produces a value of the type,newOutput
, which gives us the return value of our created function:
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType
map originalToNew f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f input
in originalToNew originalOutput)
As we can see, the types guided us on how to implement this function. If we look at this closer, we can see that it's just function composition.
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutput
map originalToNew f = (\input > originalToNew $ f input)
 or
map originalToNew f = (originalToNew <<< f)
 or even
map = (<<<)
In real code, normally we use a
, b
as type variable. Therefore, the above snippet will be simplfied to
class Functor (Function i) where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > Function i a > Function i b
map = (<<<)
Takeaways
Our first example taught us two things:
 we have to make
Function
higherkinded by one less type by specifying its first type (the input) and let thea
andb
arguments refer to its second type (the output).  to implmement the instance, we have to create a new function by using lambda syntax:
\argument > body
Apply
Initial Problems
Let's now look at Apply
's apply
function. It's type signature looks like this.
class (Functor f) <= Apply f where
apply :: forall a b. f (a > b) > f a > f b
Again, let's take this slowly. Notice first the first argument, what should the full type signature of f (a > b)
be if f
is Function
? Since the f
has to be the same for both situations, then f
has to be Function input
. In other words, the first argument is a function that returns another function:
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
Implementing apply
Let's see how to implement this function.
 Since
apply
returns a new function, let's start creating one using lambda syntax:
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input > { body of function })
 At this point, both
f
andfunctionInFunction
can receive an value of type,input
. For right now, let's do what we did last time and only pass it intof
. We'll store the output in a let binding:
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f input
in { body of function })
 At this point, the only way to get map
originalOutput
intonewOutput
is to pass it into the function that's hidden infunctionInFunction
. How do we get that out? We can passinput
into that function. Again, we'll store that output in a let binding:
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
originalToNew = functionInFunction input
in { body of function })
 We now have all the pieces we need to return
newOutput
. Let's passoriginalOutput
intooriginalTonew
:
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
originalToNew = functionInFunction input
in originalToNew originalOutput)
Great! Can we clean it up now?
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input > (functionInFunction input) (f input))
Takeaways
Our second example taught us the following:
 to get all the pieces necessary to implement a type class' function, we sometimes need to pass the input value into multiple functions.
Applicative
Let's now look at Applicative
's pure
function. It's type signature looks like this.
class (Apply f) <= Applicative f where
pure :: forall a. a > f a
Converting f
into Function input
, we get this type signature:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Applicative (Function inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > Function inputType outputType
Let's see how to implement it.
 Since
pure
returns a new function, let's start creating one using lambda syntax:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Applicative (Function inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > Function inputType outputType
pure value = (\input > { body of function })
 Since the function must return
value
as its output, let's ignore the argument and just return that value.
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Applicative (Function inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > outputType
pure value = (\input > value)
Let's clean this one up:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Applicative (Function inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > Function inputType outputType
pure value = (\_ > value)
Bind
Implementing bind
Let's now look at Bind
's bind
function. It's type signature looks like this.
class (Functor m) <= Bind m where
bind :: forall a b. (a > m b) > m a > m b
Converting m
into Function input
, we get this type signature:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
Let's see how to implement it.
 Since
bind
returns a new function, let's start creating one using lambda syntax:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutput > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input > { body of function })
 Since
f
is the only function that can "receive" theinput
value, let's pass it intof
and store the output:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f input
in { body of function })
 Since
originalToFunction
can "receive" theoriginalOutput
value, let's pass that intooriginalToFunction
and store its result in a let binding:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in { body of function })
 Since
inputToNewOutput
is the only function that can produce thenewOutput
value, let's passinput
into it to get that value:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input)
Let's now clean it up. First we'll get rid of that inputToNewOutput
binding:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
in (originalToFunction originalOutput) input)
Second, we'll get rid of that originalOutput
binding:
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input > (originalToFunction (f input)) input)
As can be seen, this example was a slightly more complicated version of apply
in that we needed to pass input
to multiple functions.
Summary of Our Takeaways
map
example: we have to make
Function
higherkinded by one less type by specifying its first type (the input) and let thea
andb
arguments refer to its second type (the output).  to implmement the instance, we have to create a new function by using lambda syntax:
\argument > body
 we have to make
apply
/bind
example: to get all the pieces necessary to return the
b
/newOutput
value, we sometimes need to pass theinput
value into multiple functions.
 to get all the pieces necessary to return the
Resugaring Function
In our code above, we desugared (a > b)
into Function a b
. What would happen if we resugared our type class instances above back into >
? How would we write it then?
class Functor ((>) inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
(inputType > originalOutputType) > (inputType > newOutputType)
map originalToNew f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f argument
in originalToNew originalOutput)
class (Functor ((>) inputType)) <= Apply ((>) inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(inputType > (originalOutputType > newOutputType)) >
(inputType > originalOutputType) >
(inputType > newOutputType)
apply functionInFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
originalToNew = functionInFunction input
in originalToNew originalOutput)
class (Apply ((>) inputType)) <= Applicative ((>) inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > (inputType > outputType)
pure value = (\_ > value)
class (Apply ((>) inputType)) <= Bind ((>) inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > (inputType > newOutputType)) >
(inputType > originalOutputType) >
(inputType > newOutputType)
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input)
Monadic Function Examples
This file will help you learn how to read a monadic function's "do notation." We'll take some very simple examples and do a graph reduction on them to show how a series of bind
/>>=
calls are evaluated into a final value.
Function Implementations
To help us evaluate these examples manually, we'll include our verbose "not cleaned up" solutions from the previous file here (except for the Applicative
one):
class Functor (Function inputType) where
map :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
map originalToNew f = (\input >
let originalOutput = f input
in originalToNew originalOutput)
class (Functor (Function inputType)) <= Apply (Function inputType) where
apply :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
Function inputType (originalOutputType > newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
apply functionInFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
originalToNew = functionInFunction input
in originalToNew originalOutput)
 Since pure ignores its argument, I'll use the cleaned up version
 here because it's easier to understand
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Applicative (Function inputType) where
pure :: forall outputType. outputType > Function inputType outputType
pure value = (\_ > value)
class (Apply (Function inputType)) <= Bind (Function inputType) where
bind :: forall originalOutputType newOutputType.
(originalOutputType > Function inputType newOutputType) >
Function inputType originalOutputType >
Function inputType newOutputType
bind originalToFunction f = (\input >
let
originalOutput = f input
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input)
Example 1: pure
Let's say I have the following code using "do notation"
someComputation = do
pure 1
Let's break it down:
pure 1
 replace `pure` with implementation
(\_ > 1)
This reveals the first issue with learning how to read "do notation" for monadic functions: the entire thing is one massive function. someComputation
is not a value; it's a function that expects an input.
To actually use it, we'd need to write something like this:
produceAValue = someComputation "example input"
where
someComputation = do
pure 1
Example 2: single bind
Let's say I have the following code using "do notation"
produceValue = someComputation 4
where
someComputation = do
value < \four > 1 + four
pure (value + 5)
Let's break it down:
produceValue = someComputation 4
where
someComputation = do
value < \four > 1 + four
pure (value + 5)
 hide the "produceValue" part and focus only on the 'someComputation' part
do
value < \four > 1 + four
pure (value + 5)
 desugar do notation into nested >>= calls
(\four > 1 + four) >>= (\value >
pure (value + 5)
)
 desguar >>= into bind
bind (\four > 1 + four) (\value >
pure (value + 5)
)
 replace `bind` with definition
(\input >
let
originalOutput = (\four > 1 + four) input
originalToFunction = (\value > pure (value + 5))
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 replace `pure` with definition
(\input >
let
originalOutput = (\four > 1 + four) input
originalToFunction = (\value > (\_ > value + 5))
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 uncurry the curried function due to `pure` definition replacement
(\input >
let
originalOutput = (\four > 1 + four) input
originalToFunction = (\value _ > value + 5)
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 apply argument to `originalOutput` (`four` becomes `input`)
(\input >
let
originalOutput = (\input > 1 + input)
originalToFunction = (\value _ > value + 5)
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 evaluate `originalOutput`
(\input >
let
originalOutput = 1 + input
originalToFunction = (\value _ > value + 5)
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 replace `originalOutput` with its implementation
(\input >
let
originalToFunction = (\value _ > value + 5)
inputToNewOutput = originalToFunction (1 + input)
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 inline `originalToFunction`'s definition
(\input >
let
inputToNewOutput = (\value _ > value + 5) (1 + input)
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 apply the first argument to the function
(\input >
let
inputToNewOutput = (\(1 + input) _ > (1 + input) + 5)
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 Remove the applied argument
(\input >
let
inputToNewOutput = (\ _ > (1 + input) + 5)
in inputToNewOutput input
)
 inline `inputToNewOutput`
(\input >
(\_ > (1 + input) + 5) input
)
 apply the `input` argument, which gets ignored
(\input >
(1 + input) + 5)
)
 finish cleaning up the code
(\input > (1 + input) + 5))
(\input > 1 + input + 5)
 rereveal the "produceValue" part
produceValue = someComputation 4
where
someComputation = (\input > 1 + input + 5)
 inline `someComputation`
produceValue = (\input > 1 + input + 5) 4
 apply the argument
produceValue = (\4 > 1 + 4 + 5)
 remove the lambda argument
produceValue = 1 + 4 + 5
 Evaluate it
produceValue = 10
Example 3: multiple bind
I'll leave this up to the reader to reduce, but the syntax should make it clear how it works (4 is always the initial input in each function below):
produceValue = someComputation 4
where
someComputation = do
five < (\four > 1 + four)
three < (\fourAgain > 7  fourAgain)
two < (\fourOnceMore > 13 + fourOnceMore  five * three)
(\fourTooMany > 8  two + three)
Special Output
Previously, we wrote the instances for a normal (a > b)
function. But this is only one possible function! What if we modified that function, so that it outputted something different than just b
? The reader might ask, "But if map
, apply
, pure
, and bind
all require the output/b
type to be polymorphic (i.e. it should work for all b
s), what type could we possibly return?"
Since b
must still be polymorphic, why don't we wrap it in a higherkinded type? For example, why not change (a > b)
to (a > Box b)
? How would we implement those type class instances?
Newtyping our Function
If our goal is to write instances for the function, (a > Box b)
, how can we ensure this function's type signature never changes? We can wrap the function in a newtype:
newtype OutputBox a b = OutputBox (a > Box b)
This creates a new problem. When we originally evaluated a monadic function, we could pass the value to the function without problem: produceValue = someComputation 4
.
Since our above function is now wrapped in a newtype, we need a way to easily unwrap the newtype and pass the argument to the function. Why don't we create a function called runOutputBox
to do just that?
runOutputBox :: forall a b. OutputBox a b > a > Box b
runOutputBox (OutputBox function) argument = function argument
Now we're ready to implement instances for OutputBox
Functor
Implementing map
Let's look at Functor
again.
class Functor f where
map :: forall a b. (a > b) > f a > f b
Following the same idea as before, we can convert m
into OutputBox input
and get this type signature:
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) =  implementation
Let's see how to implement it.
 Since
map
returns anOutputBox
type, let's start by first creating a newtype constructor:
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox
 The type,
OutputBox
, wraps a function, so let's use lambda syntax to create a new one:
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input > { body of function })
 Since
f
is the only argument that can receive theinput
value, let's passinput
intof
and store its output in a let binding:
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let boxStoringOriginalOutput = f input
in { body of function })
We have a problem. Do you know what it is? OutputBox a b
is really (a > Box b)
. So, f
in the code above produces a value of the type, Box originalOutput
.
Hmm... When we defined map
for Function input
, we could pass originalOutput
directly into originalToNew
at this point. However, originalOutput
is currently stuck inside of Box
. So, we have two questions.
 How do we get
originalOutput
out of theBox
?  Once we get a value of the desired type,
newOutput
, how do we stick it back into theBox
?
In other words, our situation can be expressed in a type signature:
someFunction :: Box originalOutput > Box newOutput
Wait! Doesn't that look very similar to Functor
's map
?
map :: (originalOutput > newOutput) > Box originalOutput > Box newOutput
And isn't originalToNew
a function with this exact type signature: (originalOutput > newOutput)
? And doesn't Box
itself have an instance for Functor
.
 Use
Box
'smap
to finish implementing the function.
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let boxStoringOriginalOutput = f input
in map originalToNew boxStoringOriginalOutput
)
Great! Let's clean it up by inlining boxStoringOriginalOutput
.
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
map originalToNew (f input)
)
Takeaways
Lessons we learned in this example:
 to implement
Functor
for(a > Box b)
, we needed to useBox
'sFunctor
instance.
Apply
Let's now look at Apply
.
class (Functor f) <= Apply f where
apply :: forall a b. f (a > b) > f a > f b
Our function will have this type signature:
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) =  implementation
 As before, let's implement the shell of our return type: a newtype wrapper around a function created using lambda syntax:
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
{ body of function }
)
 Let's pass
input
intof
:
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let boxStoringOriginalOput = f input
in { body of function }
)
 Let's pass
input
intoinputToFunction
to expose function:
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let
boxStoringOriginalOutput = f input
boxStoringOriginalToNew = inputToFunction input
in { body of function }
)
Hmm... This seems similar to what happened before. We have two boxes that are both storing values. When we tried implementing the Functor
instance for our function, we used Box
's Functor
definition. If we look at the types of our Box
es, we'll see that this coincidence applies here, too. boxStoringOriginalToNew
has type, Box (originalOutput > newOutput)
while boxStoringOriginalOutput
has type, Box originalOutput
. So, let's use Box
's Apply
instance to finish the funciton!
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let
boxStoringOriginalOutput = f input
boxStoringOriginalToNew = inputToFunction input
in apply boxStoringOriginalToNew boxStoringOriginalOutput
)
Takeaways
Lessons we learned in this example:
 to implement
Apply
for(a > Box b)
, we needed to useBox
'sApply
instance.
Applicative
You've probably noticed a pattern by now. To implement a type class for our function, we need to use Box
's corresponding instance for that type class.
We'll do this one quickly.
class (Apply f) <= Applicative f where
pure :: forall a. a > f a
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Applicative (OutputBox input) where
pure :: forall a. a > (OutputBox input) a
pure value = OutputBox (\_ > pure value { Box's `pure` })
Bind
We'll do this one a bit more slowly.
class (Apply m) <= Bind m where
bind :: forall a b. m a > (a > m b) > m b
 convert `f` into `OutputBox input`
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction =  implementation
 Write the initial newtype constructor wrapping a function created
 via lambda syntax
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction = OutputBox (\input >
{ body of function }
)
 expose the `boxOriginalOutput` value
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction = OutputBox (\input >
let boxOriginalOutput = inputToOriginal input
in { body of function }
)
 use `Box`'s `bind` to reveal `originalOutput`
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction = OutputBox (\input >
let boxOriginalOutput = inputToOriginal input
in bind boxOriginalOutput (\originalOutput >
{ body of function }
)
)
 pass `originalOutput` into `originalToFunction`
 and use pattern matching to expose the function wrapped in the `OutpuBox`
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction = OutputBox (\input >
let boxOriginalOutput = inputToOriginal input
in bind boxOriginalOutput (\originalOutput >
let (OutputBox inputToNew) = originalToFunction originalOutput
in { body of function }
)
)
 pass `input` into `inputToNew`, which produces `Box newOutput` and
 satisfies the type signature of `bind`.
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction = OutputBox (\input >
let boxOriginalOutput = inputToOriginal input
in bind boxOriginalOutput (\originalOutput >
let (OutputBox inputToNew) = originalToFunction originalOutput
in inputToNew input
)
)
If we were to clean up the finished code above, we would write this:
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction =
OutputBox (\input > do
originalOutput < inputToOriginal input
let (OutpuBox inputToNew) = originalToFunction originalOutput
inputToNew input
)
Generalizing Box
to any Monad
If we look at our final instances below (they were copied from above), we'll see that we never once used Box
explicitly. Rather, we could have replaced Box
with any monadic data type and we would still be able to implement instances of these type class' functions that satisfy their type signatures.
instance Functor (OutputBox input) where
map :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
(originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
map originalToNew (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
map originalToNew (f input)
)
instance (Functor (OutputBox input)) <= Apply (OutputBox input) where
apply :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input (originalOutput > newOutput) >
OutputBox input originalOutput >
OutputBox input newOutput
apply (OutputBox inputToFunction) (OutputBox f) = OutputBox (\input >
let
boxStoringOriginalOutput = f input
boxStoringOriginalToNew = inputToFunction input
in apply boxStoringOriginalToNew boxStoringOriginalOutput
)
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Applicative (OutputBox input) where
pure :: forall a. a > (OutputBox input) a
pure value = OutputBox (\_ > pure value)
instance (Apply (OutputBox input)) <= Bind (OutputBox input) where
bind :: forall originalOutput newOutput.
OutputBox input originalOutput >
(originalOutput > OutputBox input newOutput) >
OutputBox input newOutput
bind (OutputBox inputToOriginal) originalToFunction =
OutputBox (\input > do
originalOutput < inputToOriginal input
let (OutpuBox inputToNew) = originalToFunction originalOutput
inputToNew input
)
If we were to generalize our function to a monad, it would look like this:
newtype OutputMonad a m b = (a > m b)
runOutputMonad :: forall m a b. Monad m => OutputMonad a m b > a > m b
runOutputMonad (OutputMonad function) arg = function arg
Introducing Monad Transformers and Capabilities
Comparing Function input output
to OutputBox input output
When we initially covered the original monadic function, (a > b)
, we discovered that it's "do notation" could be read like this:
produceValue = someComputation 4
where
someComputation = do
five < (\four > 1 + four)
three < (\fourAgain > 7  fourAgain)
two < (\fourOnceMore > 13 + fourOnceMore  five * three)
(\fourTooMany > 8  two + three)
The above computation demonstrates something important: the argument, 4
, passed to someComputation
is always available in its do notation despite the argument, 4
, never appearing as an argument in someComputation
's definition.
 In other words, we have this...
someComputation = do
 code...
 ... not this...
someComputation argumentThatIsFour = do
 some code
The normal (a > b)
function allows us to reference the argument we pass into the function at any point in its do notation. Unfortunately, since the return value of that function is b
, we are limited to only writing pure code. In other words, someComputation
is a computation that can never interact with the outside world.
But what happens if we use the OutputMonad
/(a > monad b)
function? Since it outputs a monadic data type, what if that monadic data type was Effect
or Aff
? If so, the resulting code would be very hard to read:
produceComputation = runOutputEffect someComputation 4
where {
someComputation :: OutputMonad a m b }
someComputation :: OutputMonad Int Effect String
someComputation = do
five < (\four > pure $ 1 + four)
three < (\fourAgain > pure $ 7  fourAgain)
intBetween0And12 < (\fourOnceMore > randomInt 0 $ 13 + fourOnceMore  five)
(\fourTooMany > log $ show $ 8  intBetween0And12)
But what if we expressed the same idea using capabilities via type class constraints? This is the same code as above:
produceComputation = runOutputMonad someComputation 4
where
someComputation :: forall m. Monad m =>
MonadReader Int m =>
MonadEffect m =>
OutputMonad Int m String
someComputation = do
four < ask
let five = 1 + four
let three = 7  four
intBetween0And12 < liftEffect $ randomInt 0 $ 13 + four  five
liftEffect $ log $ show $ 8  intBetween0And12
Introducing ReaderT
To see this from a slighty different angle, we'll cover a few things before linking to an example showing how a computation "evolves" into the Reader
monad.
OutputMonad
is better known as ReaderT
:
 when
ReaderT
's monadic type is a real monad, we call itReaderT
 when
ReaderT
's monadic type isIdentity
(placeholder monadic type), we call itReader
.
It's corresponding type class is MonadReader
.
Watch a computation "evolve" into the Reader
monad in the Monad Reader Example.
Monad Transformers Summarized
The Main Idea
This is the whole point of using monadic functions that output monadic data types: they allow us to encode all of our business logic as one massive pure function.
If the underlying outputted monadic data type is...  then running our code will ... 

Effect /Aff ("impure" monads)  execute a program 
Identity ^/Trampoline ^^("pure" monad)  allow us test our business logic 
^ Identity
is what you get if Box
was a newtype rather than data. In other words, newtype Identity a = Identity a
. identity
is a function that returns as output its input. Thus, it's often used as a "placeholder" / mempty
function value. Similarly, Identity a
is a type that reduces to the a
type at runtime. Thus, it's often used as a "placeholder" / mempty
like monadic type.
^^ Trampoline
is a monad that we haven't introduced yet.
With one monad, we can prove that our business logic works as expected and does not have any bugs, and with another monad, we can execute that same business logic as a useful program.
This helps us understand the name behind "Monad Transformers". Monadic functions that return other monadic data types (i.e. a > m b
) are called "Monad Transformers" because they transform (or augment) the base monad with additional capabilities. They are the "implementation" that makes all of this work.
However, we use type classes like MonadReader
, MonadState
, MonadWriter
, etc. to express that a given computation can only be run if their implementation can satisfy the required capabilities.
In short, we use type classes above to "write" our business logic and monad transformers to "run" our business logic.
Breaking It Down
First, there is a type class that indicates that some underlying monad has the capability to do some effect (e.g. state manipulation via MonadState
).
Second, there is a default implementation for that class via a monadic newtyped function (e.g. ReaderT
). As we will see later, such functions add in specific effects, reduce some of the syntax boilerplate one might write, and make impossible states impossible.
When we wish to transform some other monad, we use the newtyped monadic functions that end with T
as in "transformer" (e.g. ReaderT
). However, if we don't want to transform a monad (i.e. just use Identity
to act as a placeholder monadic type), then we remove that T
(e.g. Reader
).
Third, the general pattern (there are exceptions!) that we will see reappear when overviewing the other Monad Transformers:
 There is a type class called
Monad[Word]
where[Word]
clarifies what functions the type class provides. This type class indicates that some underlying monad has some capability.  There is a single default implementation for
Monad[Word]
called[Word]T
. When the monad type is specialized toIdentity
, it's simply called[Word]
.  To run a computation using
Monad[Word]
, we must use eitherrun[Word] computation arg
(i.e. the monad isIdentity
) orrun[Word]T computation arg
(i.e. a nonIdentity
monad).
Putting it into a table, we get this.
Type Class  Sole Implementation ( m is real monad)function that runs it  Sole Implementation ( m is Identity )function that runs it 

Monad[Word] (General Pattern)  [Word]T run[Word]T  [Word] run[Word] 
MonadState  StateT runStateT  State runState 
MonadReader  ReaderT runReaderT  Reader runReader 
MonadWriter  WriterT runWriterT  Writer runWriter 
MonadCont  ContT runCont  Cont runCont 
MonadError  ExceptT runExceptT  Except runExcept 
To summarize each monad transformer, we'll use another table. The below terms for "pure" and "impure" refer to whether the computations can interact with the real world.:
A basic function...  ... is used to run a pure computation ...  can be "upgraded" to a monad transformer...  ... which is used to run an impure computation ... 

input > output  that depends on its input  globalValue > monad outputThatUsesGlobalValue ReaderT  that depends on some global configuration 
state > Tuple output state  that does state manipulation  oldState > monad (Tuple (output, newState)) StateT  that does state manipulation 
function $ arg  once an argument is fully computed  \function > output ContT  and periodically use a function passed in as an argument to compute something 
Some monad transformers just specify what their output type will be:
A basic return value...  ... that is used to run a pure computation ...  ... can be put into a Monad and become a monad transformer...  ... which is used to run an impure computation ... 

Tuple output additionalOutput  that also produces additional output  monad (Tuple (output, accumulatedValue) WriterT  that produces accumulated data as additional output 
Either e a  that handles partial functions  monad (Either e a) ExceptT  that may fail and the error matters 
Maybe a  that might not return a value  monad (Maybe a) MaybeT  that might not return a value 
List a  that produces 0 or more values  monad (List a) ListT  that produces 0 or more values 
Once again, the "base monad" that usually inhibits m
in the "stack" of nested monad transformers is usually one of two things:
Effect
/Aff
: impure monads that actually make our business logic usefulIdentity
/Free
: pure monads that test our business logic.
Implementing a Monad Transformer
This folder will show the thought process one would take to implement a monad transformer (e.g. the type class and its implementation) for manipulating state in a monad stack. The lessons learned/demonstrated in this folder will make it easier to understand the standard monad transformers covered in the rest of this MTL
folder.
Looking at OO for a Pattern
We'll look at three examples of OO code to help us understand it's equivalent in FP code.
Incrementing an Integer
Given this code:
a = 0;
x = a++;
y = a++;
z = a++;
// which we'll rewrite to use a function that receives an argument
a = 0;
x = getAndIncrement(a);
y = getAndIncrement(a);
z = getAndIncrement(a);
getAndIncrement
is an example of an impure function because it does not return the same value each time it is called. Moreover, a
's value changes over time, so that a /= 0
at the end of our program. How might we write the same thing using pure functions? We'll demonstrate a few attempts and explain their problems before showing the final working solution
// we'll make the function pure
// and call it "add1"
var add1 = (i) => i + 1;
a = 0;
x = add1(a);
y = add1(a);
z = add1(a);
// Values end states are:
a == 0
x == y == z == 1
The problem is add1
receives the wrong state as an argument. If we pass the returned state from our previous call into the next call, we can resolve this problem:
a = 0;
x = add1(a);
y = add1(x);
z = add1(y);
// Values end states are:
a == 0
x == 1
y == 2
z == 3
At this point, we could do state manipulation using a recursive function...
runNTimes :: forall a. Int > (a > a) > a
runNTimes 0 _ output = output
runNTimes count func arg = runNTimes (count  1) func (func arg)
... but state manipulation is more complicated than that. What if we wanted to add 1 at one point and add 2 at another? What if we want to subtract 5 as well? In short, this approach does not work when we increase the complexity of the state manipulation. The next two examples will focus on a different kind of state manipulation.
Random Number Generators
Given this code:
x = random.nextInt
y = random.nextInt
z = random.nextInt
// rewritten to use "function arg" syntax
x = nextInt(random);
y = nextInt(random);
z = nextInt(random);
nextInt
is an impure function because it does not return the same value each time it is called. How might we write the same thing using pure functions? We'll demonstrate a few attempts and explain their problems before showing the final working solution
// Assume that `nextInt` is now pure...
x = nextInt(random);
y = nextInt(random);
// ... then 'x' ALWAYS equals 'y'
// A random number can sometimes be the same one as before,
// but this shouldn't always be true
// To make `x /= y`, we need a new `random` value, something like:
x = nextInt(random1);
y = nextInt(random2);
The solution is to make nextInt
return two things via the Tuple a b
type
 the random int value
 a new value of
random
(Tuple x random2) = nextInt(random1);
(Tuple y random3) = nextInt(random2);
where Tuple a b
is just a box that holds two values of the same/different types:
data Tuple a b = Tuple a b
Popping Stacks
We'll explain this idea once more using a different context: Stacks. In OO, we can write the following code:
// assuming we have a nonempty stack:
// (top) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (bottom)
x = stack.pop // x == 1
y = stack.pop // y == 2
z = stack.pop // z == 3
// rewritten using "function arg" syntax
x = pop(stack);
y = pop(stack);
z = pop(stack);
pop
is an impure function as calling it will not return the same value each time it is called. How might we write the same thing using pure functions?
// Assume that `nextInt` is now pure...
x = pop(stack);
y = pop(stack);
// ... we just popped the same value twice off of the stack
// so that 'x' is always the same value/object as 'y'
// In other words
pop(stack) == x == y == 1
// To make `y` == 2, we need a version of `stack` that will return `2`
// as its next value to `pop`. In other words, something like...
x = pop(originalStack);
y = pop(originalStack_withoutX);
The solution is to make pop
return two things via the Tuple a b
type:
 the popped value
 a new version of
stack
without the popped value
(Tuple x originalStack_withoutX) = pop(originalStack);
(Tuple y originalStack_withoutXorY) = pop(originalStack_withoutX);
Identifying the Pattern
Here's the solution we came up with:
(Tuple x random2) = randomInt(random1);
(Tuple y random3) = randomInt(random2);
(Tuple x originalStack_withoutX) = pop(originalStack);
(Tuple y originalStack_withoutXorY) = pop(originalStack_withoutX);
// and generalizing it to a pattern, we get
(Tuple value1, value2 ) = stateManipulation(value1);
(Tuple value2, value3 ) = stateManipulation(value2);
(Tuple value3, value4 ) = stateManipulation(value3);
// ...
(Tuple value_N, value_N_plus_1) = stateManipulation(valueN);
Turning this into Purescript syntax, we get:
state_manipulation_function :: forall state value. (state > Tuple value state)
Implementing the Pattern
Here's the solution we came up with:
(Tuple x random2) = randomInt(random1);
(Tuple y random3) = randomInt(random2);
(Tuple x originalStack_withoutX) = pop(originalStack);
(Tuple y originalStack_withoutXorY) = pop(originalStack_withoutX);
// and generalizing it to a pattern, we get
(Tuple value1, value2 ) = stateManipulation(value1);
(Tuple value2, value3 ) = stateManipulation(value2);
(Tuple value3, value4 ) = stateManipulation(value3);
// ...
(Tuple value_N, value_N_plus_1) = stateManipulation(valueN);
Turning this into Purescript syntax, we get:
state_manipulation_function :: forall state value. (state > Tuple value state)
Syntax Familiarity
Starting with a simple example written using metalanguage, we can simulate the state manipulation syntax when it's only run once. Unlike the "add 1 to integer" problem from before, this will return the integer state as a String
, not an Int
:
type State = Int
type Value = String
initialState :: State
initialState = 0
add1 :: (State > Tuple Value State)
add1 oldState =
let theNextState = oldState + 1
in Tuple (show theNextState) theNextState
main :: Effect Unit
main =
case (add1 initialValue) of
Tuple theValue theNextState > do
log $ "Value was: " <> theValue  "1"
log $ "next state was: " <> show theNextState  1
Why We Need a Monad
What if we want to run add1
four times?
Knowing that we have more complicated state manipulation ahead of us (e.g. Stacks), we should follow the pattern we identified above:
 Pass an initial state value into
add1
, which outputsTuple nextStateAsString nextState
 Extract the
nextState
part of the Tuple  Pass
nextState
into anotheradd1
call  Loop a few times
 Pass the last state into
add
and return its output:Tuple lastStateAsString lastState
.
In code, this looks like:
type State = Int
type Value = String
type Count = Int
add1 :: (State > Tuple Value State)
add1 oldState =
let theNextState = oldState + 1
in Tuple (show theNextState) theNextState
add1_FourTimes :: State > Tuple Value State
add1_FourTimes initialState = runNTimes 4 add1 initialState
runNTimes :: Count > (State > Tuple Value State) > State > Tuple Value State
runNTimes 1 add1_ nextState = add1_ nextState
runNTimes count add1_ nextState =
runNTimes (count  1) add1_ (getSecond $ add1_ i)
where
getSecond :: Tuple Value State > Int
getSecond (Tuple _ state) = state
This works but only because it's so simple. Let's say we want to call add1
on the first state, then call times2
on the second state, and then return the output of calling add1
on the third state. How would we update our code to do that?
We could try to specify a stack of functions (using an array or some other stacklike data structure) that are used to recursively evaluate the next state outputted by the previous function. Below is not a working example of how one would write that, but merely demonstrates the heart behind it:
type Stack a = Array a
type State = Int
type Value = String
 This code doesn't type check!
 It exists for teaching purposes only!
runUsingFunctions :: Stack (State > Tuple Value State) > State > Tuple Value State
runUsingFunctions [last] state = last state
runUsingFunctions [second, last] = runUsingFunctions [last] (getSecond $ second state)
runUsingFunctions [first, second, last] state =
runUsingFunctions [second, last] (getSecond $ first state)
where
getSecond :: Tuple Value State > State
getSecond (Tuple _ state) = state
Conceptually, there are two problems with the above code.
 If we change the value type for one function so that it's different from all other function in the stack (e.g.
toNumber :: Int > Tuple Number Int
), the above code will no longer compile.  We cannot use a function that receives the next state AND value(s) produced by previous function(s) as its arguments.
As an example for the second point, how could we use these two functions in the same state manipulation workflow:
firstFunction :: State1 > Tuple Value1 State2
fourthFunction :: State4 > Value1 > Tuple Value4 State5
The following function, crazyFunction
, demonstrates both of these problems without the intermediary second and third functions:
 Take some
initialState
value  Pass that value into
add1 :: State > Tuple Int Int
, which returnsTuple value1 state2
 Pass
value
andstate2
intoaddValue1StringLengthTo :: Int > Int > Tuple String Int
wherevalue
will be converted into aString
, calledvalueAsString
 the length of
valueAsString
will be added tostate2
, which producesstate3
state3
is converted into aString
, calledvalue2
 the function returns
Tuple value2 state3
 Return
addStringLengthTo
's output:Tuple value2 nextState3
To write crazyFunction
, we need something more like sequential computation, which implies bind
/>>=
. However, bind
requires a Monad to work. With these clues, we need a function whose type signature looks something like this:
someFunction :: forall state monad value
. Monad monad
=> (state > Tuple value state)  the state manipulation function
> state  the initial state
> monad (Tuple value state)  the monad that makes `bind` work
someFunction function state = pure $ function state
Putting this all together, we get this:
someFunction :: forall state monad value
. Monad monad
 the state manipulation function...
=> (state > Tuple value state)
 (the initial/next state)
> state
 whose output gets lifted into a Monad that makes `bind` work,
 so we can compose multiple state manipulating functions
 together into one function
> monad (Tuple value state))
someFunction function initialOrNextState =
let tuple = function initialOrNextState
 lift it into the Monad to
 enable sequential computation via bind
in pure tuple
)
 our Monad type
data Box a = Box a
unwrapBox :: forall a. Box a > a
unwrapBox (Box a) = a
addStringLengthTo :: Int > Int > Tuple String Int
addStringLengthTo value state =
let valueAsString = show value
state3 = state + (length valueAsString)
in Tuple (show state3) state3
 Uses `someFunction` to compose multiple state functions together into one
crazyFunction :: Int > Box (Tuple Int Int)
crazyFunction initial = do {
Tuple value state < pure $ function state
Tuple value state < (\s > pure $ function s) state
Tuple value state < (someFunction function) state }
Tuple value1 state2 < (someFunction add1) initial
(someFunction (\s > addStringLengthTo value1 s) state2
main :: Effect Unit
main =
case (unwrapBox $ crazyFunction 0) of
Tuple theString theInt > do
log $ "theString was: " <> theString  "2"
log $ "theInt was: " <> show theInt  2
There's two problems with the above approach, which the next sections will refine.
The Identity
Monad
Box
is a literal runtime Box. So, using it here as our monad type means we'll be runtime boxing and unboxing the result of our functions, thereby slowing down our code needlessly. We only need Box
so we can use a Monad for sequential computation, not because we need the type, Box
, specifically (we could use Box2
and our code wouldn't change). Why don't we get rid of this needless runtime overhead by using a type that only exists at compiletime? This implies using newtype
because the type still needs to implement an instance for Monad
.
Since we have a "placeholder" function called identity
, let's reuse this name for our compiletimeonly type:
 placeholder for a function!
identity :: forall a. a > a
identity x = x
 runtime type!
data Box a = Box a
 placeholder for a monad!
 compiletimeONLY type!
newtype Identity a = Identity a
The Syntax Problem
crazyFunction
showed an issue with our current approach: we have to pass the previous state
result back into the next function. If the developer passes in the wrong state value, the code will no longer work as expected:
crazyFunction :: Int > Identity (Tuple Int Int)
crazyFunction initial = do
 Computation 1: here we calculate what state2 is
Tuple value1 state2 < (someFunction add1) initial
 Computation 2: here we calculate what state3 is
Tuple value2 state3 < (someFunction add1) state2
 Computation 3: here we pass in `state2` when we should pass in `state3`
(someFunction (\s > addStringLengthTo value2 s) state2
In short, we need to hide the state
value entirely from the function so that developers cannot pass in the wrong value. Thus, we must also get rid of the Tuple value state
notion in our function. Putting those two concepts together, we imagine syntax that looks like this:
nextValue < someFunction (\nextState > stateManipulatingFunction nextState)
This syntax...
nextValue < someFunction (\initialState > stateManipulatingFunction initialState)
... looks very similar to OO's syntax:
var nextValue = initialState.stateManipulatingFunction();
Another benefit: it gets rid of the boilerplatey noisey Tuple
s
What would we need to change to get this syntax? This gets tricky.
First, initialState
should now be located outside crazyFunction
and appear in another function, runSomeFunction
. runSomeFunction
should pass the initialState
value into the final composition of all the state manipulating functions:
runSomeFunction :: forall state value.
(state > Identity (Tuple value state)) >
state >
Tuple value state
runSomeFunction stateFunctionsComposedIntoOne initialState =
let (Identity tuple) = stateFunctionsComposedIntoOne initialState
in tuple
addStringLengthTo :: Int > Int > Tuple String Int
addStringLengthTo value state =
let valueAsString = show value
state3 = state + (length valueAsString)
in Tuple (show state3) state3
 Using our new syntax...
crazyFunction :: (state > Identity (Tuple Int state))
crazyFunction = do
 Computation 1
value1 < someFunction (\initialState > add1 initialState)
 Computation 2
 `bind` will produce `Tuple value2 state3`
someFunction (\state2 > addStringLengthTo value1 state2)
Second (and as the above example shows), someFunction
must somehow return just value
and not Tuple value state
.
From these clues, we get this new type signature:
someFunction :: forall state monad value.
Monad monad =>
(state > Tuple value state) > monad value
someFunction function =  ???
runSomeFunction :: forall state value.
(state > Identity (Tuple value state)) >
state >
Tuple value state
runSomeFunction stateFunctionsComposedIntoOne initialState =
let (Identity tuple) = stateFunctionsComposedIntoOne initialState
in tuple
It would seem that this idea is not possible. We'll reveal how in the next file. For now, we'll abstract this concept into a type class
Abstracting the Concept into a Type Class
We want to use someFunction
for numerous state manipulating functions on numerous data structures (e.g. add1
, popStack
, replaceElemAtIndex
). This implies that we need to convert someFunction
into a type class, so we can use someFunction
in other situations via a type class constraint. Let's attempt to define it and call the type class MonadState
. Its function, state
, should be the same as someFunction
's type signature:
someFunction :: forall state monad value
. Monad monad
=> (state > Tuple value state)
> monad value
someFunction function =  ???
class MonadState ??? where
state :: forall s m a
. (s > Tuple a s )
> m a
Because we know we need bind
, let's add a Monad constraint, m
, to ???
:
class (Monad m) <= MonadState m where
state :: forall s a
. (s > Tuple a s )
> m a
We need to make sure the state
type does not change, so we'll also define a functional dependency from m
to s
class (Monad m) <= MonadState s m  m > s where
state :: forall a
. (s > Tuple a s )
> m a
Combining this definition with its corresponding runSomeFunction
, we get this (where runSomeFunction
is now called runStateFunction
)
class (Monad m) <= MonadState s m  m > s where
state :: forall a. (s > Tuple a s) > m a
runStateFunction :: forall s a. (s > Identity (Tuple a s)) > s > Tuple a s
runStateFunction stateManipulation initialState =
let (Identity tuple) = stateManipulation initialState
in tuple
Ok. Now let's see how this seemingly impossible syntax is actually possible.
A Magical Monad
We reached these conclusions previously:
 we need
Monad
'sbind
/>>=
to enable multiple different statemanipulating functions to work  we need to hide the
state
from the actual function, so that developers can't pass in the wrong state value accidentally (i.e. make impossible states impossible). This came with two implications: Calling
bind
/>>=
should return justvalue
, notTuple value state
 Running the computation via
runSomeFunction
should returnTuple value state
.
 Calling
In short, we need to implement the following two functions with these type signatures:
class (Monad m) <= MonadState state monad  monad > state where
state :: forall value. (state > Tuple value state) > monad value
runStateFunction :: forall state value.
(state > Identity (Tuple value state)) >
state >
Tuple value state
runStateFunction stateManipulation initialState =
let (Identity tuple) = stateManipulation initialState
in tuple
Introducing the Function Monad
What if Function
was a Monad
? This might sound surprising at first, but it's actually true.
Recall that a Monad
is any type that has lawful instances for the Functor
, Apply
, Applicative
, Bind
, and Monad
(FAABM) type classes. As long as a type can successfully implement lawful functions for them, the type can be called monadic.
How might this be possible?
First, a Monad
has kind Type > Type
whereas a Function
has kind Type > Type > Type
.
We can make Function
's kind one less by specifying either the input type or the output type:
Function Int a
/(Int > a)
has kindType > Type
Function a Int
/(a > Int)
has kindType > Type
In other words, we need to turn Function
into a completely new type (data
, type
, or newtype
) that should only exist at compile time to reduce runtime overhead (e.g. type
or newtype
) that can also implement type classes (i.e. only newtype
). Using a newtyped version of Function
, we can specify all the types in the function:
newtype TypedFunction input output =
TypedFunction (input > output)
specifiesInput :: forall a. TypedFunction Int b  Kind: Type > Type
specifiesOutput :: forall a. TypedFunction a Int  Kind: Type > Type
Second, since Function
can refer to any function, what should our newtyped function's type signature be? We'll use the statemanipulating function's type signature itself!
(state > monad (Tuple value state))
We will call this the StateT
monad. The T
part of the name will become clearer later.
Monadic Instances
Let's now implement the FAABM type classes by using pattern matching to expose the inner function. The value
type will be left undefined (i.e. it's the a
in everything), making StateT
have the necessary kind, Type > Type
:
Functor
newtype StateT state monad value =
StateT (state > monad (Tuple value state))
 Let's follow the types. We'll need to return a `StateT` value
 so we'll start by doing that:
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT  todo
 Since StateT wraps a function whose only argument
 is state, we'll add that now:
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\state >
 todo
)
 We need to use that function, but it only takes an `a`
 argument. So, we need to get that `a` by using `g`
 Thus, we'll pass the returning StateT's state argument into `g`
 Then we get a `monad (Tuple a state)`
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\state >
let
ma = g state
in
 todo
)
 So we can use `bind/>>=` to expose the Tuple within this monad
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\state >
let
ma = g state
in
ma >>= (\(Tuple value state2) >
 todo
)
)
 Great. Now let's pass `value` into the `f` function
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\state >
let
ma = g state
in
ma >>= (\(Tuple value state2) >
let
b = f value
in
todo
)
)
 Now we have our `b`. However, the returned `StateT` needs
 to wrap a function that returns `monad (Tuple value state)`
 Let's do that now and finish implementing Functor for StateT
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\state >
let
ma = g state
in
ma >>= (\(Tuple value state2) >
let
b = f value
in
pure (Tuple b state2)
)
)
Apply
Since Apply
is very similar to Functor
(actually the exact same, but we just unwrap the f
now, too), we'll just show the code.
instance (Monad monad) => Apply (StateT state monad) where
apply :: forall a b
 (state > Tuple (a > b) state)
. StateT state monad (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
apply (StateT f) (StateT g) = StateT (\s1 >
let
(Tuple value1 s2) = g s1
in
let
(Tuple function s3) = f s2
in
let
mappedValue = function value1
in
pure $ Tuple mappedValue s3
)
)
)
Applicative
The Applicative instance is actually quite straight forward:
instance (Monad monad) => Applicative (StateT state monad) where
pure :: forall a. a > StateT state monad a
pure a = StateT (\s > pure $ Tuple a s)
Bind & Monad
instance (Monad monad) => Bind (StateT state monad) where
bind :: forall a b
. StateT state monad a
> (a > StateT state monad b)
> StateT state monad b
bind (StateT g) f = StateT (\s1 >
let
(Tuple value1 s2) = g s1
in
let
(State h) = f value1
in
h s2
)
)
 The Monad instance is just declared since there is nothing to implement.
instance (Monad m) => Monad (StateT state monad)
MonadState
instance (Monad m) => Monad (StateT state monad) where
state :: forall value. (state > Tuple value state) > StateT state monad value
state f = StateT (\s > pure $ f s)
FAABM Using Bind
Notice, however, that the above let ... in
syntax is really just a verbose way of doing bind
/>>=
. If we were to rewrite our instances using bind
, they now look like this:
instance (Monad monad) => Functor (StateT state monad) where
map :: forall a b
. (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
map f (StateT g) = StateT (\s1 >
(g s1) >>= (\(Tuple value1 s2) >
pure $ Tuple (function value1) s2
)
)
instance (Monad monad) => Apply (StateT state monad) where
apply :: forall a b
 (state > Tuple (a > b) state)
. StateT state monad (a > b)
> StateT state monad a
> StateT state monad b
apply (StateT f) (StateT g) = StateT (\s1 >
(g s1) >>= (\(Tuple value1 s2) >
(f s2) >>= (\(Tuple function s3) >
pure $ Tuple (function value1) s3
)
)
)
instance (Monad monad) => Applicative (StateT state monad) where
pure :: forall a. a > StateT state monad a
pure a = StateT (\s > pure $ Tuple a s)
instance (Monad monad) => Bind (StateT state monad) where
bind :: forall a b
. StateT state monad a
> (a > StateT state monad b)
> StateT state monad b
bind (StateT g) f = StateT (\s1 >
(g s1) >>= (\(Tuple value1 s2) >
let (StateT h) = f value1 in h s2
)
)
instance (Monad m) => Monad (StateT state monad)
Reviewing StateT's Bind Instance
Let's look in particular at StateT
's bind
implmentation as this is crucial to understanding how it enables the syntax we desire:
instance (Monad monad) => Bind (StateT state monad) where
bind :: forall a b
. StateT state monad a
> (a > StateT state monad b)
> StateT state monad b
bind (StateT g) f = StateT (\s1 >
(g s1) >>= (\(Tuple value1 s2) >
let
(StateT h) = f value1
in
 h :: (state > monad (Tuple value state))
h s2
)
)
Behind the scenes, StateT
is still using Tuple value state
as normal. However, the value that is passed to f
is the value
type (i.e. a
) and not Tuple value state
. This is what enables the syntax we desire.
In other words, recall that
bind (Box 4) (\four > body)
 converts to
(Box 4) >>= (\four > body)
 which in 'do notation' looks like
four < (Box 4)
body four
In the next file, we'll show how this actually works via a graph reduction.
Proving the Syntax
This file will prove that the syntax works by doing a graph reduction of
StateT
's do notation running a
StateT
and insuring it type checks.
Reading StateT Do Notation
newtype StateT state monad output = StateT (state > monad (Tuple output state))
stateT_do_notation :: StateT StateType MonadType ValueType
stateT_do_notation = do
 This is what do notation looks like using a StateT monad
value1 < state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)
value2 < state (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3)
value3 < state (\state3 > Tuple value3 state4)
state (\state4 > Tuple value4 state5)
Reducing a StateT's Do Notation
It's now time to reduce a simple StateT
's do notation expression into its final result. Here's the simple expression:
f = do
value1 < state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)
state (\state2 > Tuple value1 state3)
It gets ugly pretty quickly, but we present it in a manner that reduces the information overload:
 Start!
f = do
value1 < state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)
state (\state2 > Tuple value1 state3)
 Turn the "do notation" back to ">>="
f =
state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) >>= (\value1 >
state (\state2 > Tuple value1 state3)
)
 Convert ">>=" back into "bind"
f =
bind (state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)) (\value1 >
state (\state2 > Tuple value1 state3)
)
 Take the function that is passed to bind, call it "func",
 and put it into a 'where' clause:
f = bind (state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)) func
where
func = (\value1 > state (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3))
 hide everything but "func"
func = (\value1 > state (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3))
 Recall what StateT's MonadState implementation is...
instance Monad m => MonadState s (StateT s m) where
state f = StateT (\sA > pure $ f sA)
 ... and use it to replace `state`'s LHS with its RHS
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > pure $ f sA))
where
f = (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3)
 bump `f` into `func`
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > pure $ (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA ))
 Rename `pure` to `pureID` to show that it's Identity's "pure"
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > pureID $ (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA ))
 replace "pureID"'s LHS with RHS
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 Reexpose main function
f = bind (state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)) func
where
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 Omit the "where" clause for now,
 but still keep `func` in the first line so we can come back to it
f = bind (state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)) func
 Recall what StateT's MonadState implementation is...
instance Monad m => MonadState s (StateT s m) where
state f = StateT (\s > pure $ g s)
 ... and use it to replace `state`'s LHS with its RHS
f = bind (StateT (\s > pure $ g s)) func
where
g = (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)
 Bump `g` into `f`
f = bind (
StateT (\sZ > pure $ (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ)
) func
 Rename the "pure" to "pureID" to help us remember that it's Identity's pure
f = bind (
StateT (\sZ > pureID $ (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ)
) func
 apply "pureID" to its argument
f = bind (
StateT (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
) func
 Recall what StateT's bind instance is...
instance (Monad m) => Bind (StateT s m) where
bind :: forall a b. StateT s m a > (a > StateT s m b) > StateT s m b
bind (StateT g) f = StateT (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2)
where
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = f value1 in h sX)
 ... and replace its LHS with its RHS
f =
StateT (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2)
) func
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ)
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
 Reexpose "func" argument
f = StateT (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2)
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 Finished!
finalFunction = StateT (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2)
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
Running a StateT with an Initial Value
To run a StateT
, we just need to unwarp the StateT
newtype wrapper.:
runStateT :: forall s m a. StateT s m a > s > m (Tuple a s)
runStateT (StateT f) initS = f initS
Reducing a runStateT
Call
We'll run the desugared donotation function from above on some initial state, initS
. This won't produce anything important, but shows why/how it still type checks:
 From above
f = StateT (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2)
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 Now call "runState" with "f" and some initial state
 where 'm' is Identity
runStateT :: forall s m a. StateFunction s m a > s > m (Tuple a s)
runStateT (StateT f) initS = f initS
 which now becomes
runStateT = (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2) initS
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 hide `func2` and `func`
runStateT = (\sY > (g sY) >>= func2) initS
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
 apply initialState to the argument
runStateT = (g initS) >>= func2
where
g = (\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ))
 bump "g" to the main function
runStateT = ((\sZ > Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) sZ)) initS) >>= func2
 Apply `initS` to the `(\sZ > body)` function
runStateT = (Identity ((\initialState > Tuple value1 state2) initS)) >>= func2
 Apply `initS` to the `(\initialState > body)` function
runStateT = (Identity (Tuple value1 state2)) >>= func2
 call Identity's ">>="
runStateT = func2 (Tuple value1 state2)
 Reexpose `func2`
runStateT = func2 (Tuple value1 state2)
where
func2 = (\(Tuple value1 sX) > let (StateT h) = func value1 in h sX)
 bump "func2" into main function
runStateT =
(\(Tuple value1 sX) >
let (StateT h) = func value1
in h sX
) (Tuple value1 initS)
 apply Tuple argument to the function
runStateT =
let (StateT h) = func value1
in h initS
 Reexpose `func`
runStateT =
let (StateT h) = func value1
in h initS
where
func = (\value1 > StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)))
 bump "func" into main function
runStateT =
let (StateT h) =
(\value1 >
StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA))
) value1
in h initS
 apply "value1" to its function
runStateT =
let (StateT h) =
StateT (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA))
in h initS)
 Use pattern matching to extract the function bound to "h"
runStateT =
let h = (\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA))
in h initS)
 and replace the "h" binding with its definition
runStateT =
(\sA > Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) sA)) initS
 Apply "initS" to `(\sA > body)` function
runStateT =
Identity ((\state2 > Tuple value2 state3) initS))
 apply "initS" to `(\state2 > body)` function
runStateT = Identity (Tuple value2 initS)
 End result!
runStateT :: forall s m a. m (Tuple a s)
runStateT = Identity (Tuple value2 initS)
Overview
Monad Reader
MonadAsk
is used to expose a readonly value to a monadic context. It's default implmentation is ReaderT
:
 r m a
newtype ReaderT readOnly monad finalOutput =
ReaderT (\readOnly > monad finalOutput)
 Pseudosyntax for combining the type class and ReaderT's instance together
class (Monad m) <= MonadAsk r (ReaderT r m) where
ask :: forall a. ReaderT r m a
ask a = ReaderT (\_ > pure a)
Do Notation
When writing StateT
's do notation, we have a function called get
that does not take any argument but still returns a value:
stateManipulation :: State Int Int
stateManipulation =
get
 which reduces to
state (\s > Tuple s s)
 which reduces to
StateT (\s > Identity (Tuple s s))
 When we run `stateManipulation` with `runState`...
runState (StateT (\s > Identity (Tuple s s))) 0
 it reduces to...
unboxIdentity $ (\s > Identity (Tuple s s)) 0
 which reduces to
unboxIdentity (Identity (Tuple 0 0))
 and finally outputs
Tuple 0 0
MonadAsk
's function works similarly:
type Settings = { editable :: Boolean, fontSize :: Int }
useSettings :: Reader Settings Settings
useSettings = ask
 which reduces to...
ReaderT (\r > Identity r)
 When we run `useSettings` with `runReader`
runReader useSettings { editable: true, fontSize: 12 }
 it reduces to
unwrapIdentity $ (\r > Identity r) { editable: true, fontSize: 12 }
 which reduces to
unwrapIdentity (Identity { editable: true, fontSize: 12 })
 which reduces to
{ editable: true, fontSize: 12 }
MonadReader
MonadReader
extends MonadAsk
by allowing the readonly value to be modified first before being used in one computation.
class MonadAsk r m <= MonadReader r m  m > r where
local :: forall a. (r > r) > m a > m a
Derived Functions
MonadReader
does not have any derived functions.
MonadAsk
has one derived function:
asks
: apply a function to the readonly value (useful for extracting something out of it, like a field in a settings object)
Laws, Instances, and Miscellaneous Functions
For the laws, see
To see how ReaderT
implements its instances
 Functor instance
 Apply instance
 Applicative instance
 Bind instance
 MonadTell instance, which is implemented using
pure
(Applicative)  MonadReader instance, which is implemented using
withReaderT
but wherer1
andr2
are the same
To handle/modify the output of a reader computation:
02MonadAskExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadAsk where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Control.Monad.Reader.Class (ask, asks)
import Control.Monad.Reader (Reader, runReader)
main :: Effect Unit
main = log $ runReader useSettings { editable: true, fontSize: 12 }
type Settings = { editable :: Boolean, fontSize :: Int }
 r a
 ReaderT Settings Identity String
useSettings :: Reader Settings String
useSettings = do
entireSettingsObject < ask
specificField < asks (_.fontSize)
pure ("Entire Settings Object: " <> show entireSettingsObject <> "\n\
\Specific Field: " <> show specificField)
03MonadReaderExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadReader where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Control.Monad.Reader.Class (ask, local)
import Control.Monad.Reader (Reader, runReader)
main :: Effect Unit
main = log $ runReader useSettings { editable: true, fontSize: 12 }
type Settings = { editable :: Boolean, fontSize :: Int }
 r a
 ReaderT Settings Identity String
useSettings :: Reader Settings String
useSettings = do
original < ask
output < local
 a function that modifies the readonly value...
(\settings > settings { fontSize = 20 })
 which is used in only one computation
ask
original_ < ask
pure (
"Original: " <> show original <> "\n\
\Output of computation that uses modified value: " <> show output <> "\n\
\Back to normal: " <> show original_
)
MonadState
MonadState
is used to run state manipulating functions. Since only one type implements the class, we'll combine the class' definition and instance into one block:
newtype StateT state monad output =
StateT (\state > monad (Tuple output state))
 Pseudo syntax: combines class and instance into one block:
class (Monad m) <= MonadState s (StateT s m) where
state :: forall a. (s > Tuple a s) > StateT s m a
state f = StateT (\s > pure $ f s)
Reading Its Do Notation
stateT_do_notation :: StateT State Value
stateT_do_notation = do
value1 < state (\initialState > Tuple value1 state2)
value2 < state (\state2 > Tuple value2 state3)
value3 < state (\state3 > Tuple value3 state4)
state (\state4 > Tuple value4 state5)
Derived Functions
As we saw above, whenever we wrote state function
, function
always had to wrap our output into a Tuple
type:
(\state > { do stuff } Tuple output nextState)
This gets tedious really fast. Fortunately, MonadState
's derived functions remove that boilerplate and emphasize the developer's intent:
get
: returns the stategets
: applies a function to the state and returns the result (useful for extracting some value out of the state)put
: overwrites the current state with the argumentmodify
: modify the state and return the updated statemodify_
: same asmodify
but returnunit
so we can ignore thebinding <
syntax
sideBySideComparison :: State Int String
sideBySideComparison = do
state1 < state (\s > Tuple s s)
state2 < get
shownI1 < state (\s > Tuple (show s) s)
shownI2 < gets show
state (\s > Tuple unit 5)
put 5
added1A < state (\s > let s' = s + 1 in Tuple s' s')
added1B < modify (_ + 1)
state (\s > Tuple unit (s + 1))
modify_ (_ + 1)
 to satisfy the type requirements
 in that the function ultimately returns a `String`
pure "string"
Returning to our previous example, crazyFunction
was implemented like so:
 Take some
initialState
value  Pass that value into
add1 :: State > Tuple Int Int
, which returnsTuple value1 state2
 Pass
value
andstate2
intoaddValue1StringLengthTo :: Int > Int > Tuple String Int
wherevalue
will be converted into aString
, calledvalueAsString
 the length of
valueAsString
will be added tostate2
, which producesstate3
state3
is converted into aString
, calledvalue2
 the function returns
Tuple value2 state3
 Return
addStringLengthTo
's output:Tuple value2 nextState3
With MonadState
, we would now write:
crazyFunction :: State Int String
crazyFunction = do
value1 < modify (_ + 1)
modify_ (_ + (length $ show value1))
gets show
main :: Effect Unit
main =
case (runState crazyFunction 0) of
Tuple theString theInt > do
log $ "theString was: " <> theString  "2"
log $ "theInt was: " <> show theInt  2
runState :: forall s a. StateT s Identity a > s > Tuple a s
runState stateT initialState =
let (Identity tuple) = runStateT stateT initialState
in tuple
runStateT :: forall s m a. StateT s m a > s > m Tuple a s
runStateT (StateT f) initialState = f initialState
Laws, Instances, and Miscellaneous Functions
For the laws, see MonadState's docs
For its instances, see:
To handle/modify the output of a state computation:
02MonadStateExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadState where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Tuple (Tuple(..))
import Data.String.CodePoints (length)
import Control.Monad.State.Class (state, get, gets, put, modify, modify_)
import Control.Monad.State (State, runState)
main :: Effect Unit
main =
case (runState sideBySideComparison 0) of
Tuple s i > do
log $ "s was: " <> s
log $ "i was: " <> show i
case (runState crazyFunction 0) of
Tuple theString theInt > do
log $ "theString was: " <> theString  "2"
log $ "theInt was: " <> show theInt  2
crazyFunction :: State Int String
crazyFunction = do
value1 < modify (_ + 1)
modify_ (_ + (length $ show value1))
gets show
sideBySideComparison :: State Int String
sideBySideComparison = do
state1 < state (\s > Tuple s s)
state2 < get
shownI1 < state (\s > Tuple (show s) s)
shownI2 < gets show
state (\s > Tuple unit 5)
put 5
added1A < state (\s > let s' = s + 1 in Tuple s' s')
added1B < modify (_ + 1)
state (\s > Tuple unit (s + 1))
modify_ (_ + 1)
 to satisfy the type requirements
 in that the function ultimately returns a `String`
pure "string"
Overview
Monad Tell
MonadTell
is used to return additional nonoutput data that is generated during a computation. It's default implementation is WriterT
.
Since we can only return one object and we want to return something in addition to the output, we'll need to return a Tuple
that wraps the output and additional data. In cases where we already have nonoutput data and need to "store" another alue of nonoutput data, we'll need to combine the two together, which implies a Semigroup
. Lastly, to implement Applicative
, we will need an "empty" value of that data, which implies Monoid
.
Putting this into code, we get this:
 w m a
newtype WriterT non_output_data monad output =
WriterT (monad (Tuple output non_output_data))
 Pseudosyntax: combines the type class and instance into one block
class (Monoid w, Monad m) <= MonadTell w (WriterT w m) where
tell :: w > m Unit
tell w = WriterT (pure (Tuple unit w))
Do Notation
Since tell
returns an m Unit
, which will be discarded in do notation, we'll only be writing:
useReader :: Reader NonOuputData Output
useReader = do {
unit < tell nonOuputData }
tell nonOuputData
 without indentation
tell nonOuputData
Monad Writer
MonadWriter
extends MonadTell
by enabling a computation's nonoutput data to be
 appended via
tell
and then exposed in the do notation for later usage (listen
)  appended via
tell
after it is modified by a function (pass
)
Derived Functions
MonadTell
does not have any derived functions.
MonadWriter
has two:
listens
: same aslisten
but modifies the nonoutput data before exposing it to the do notationcensor
: modifies the nonoutput data returned by a computation before appending it viatell
.
Laws, Instances, and Miscellaneous Functions
For their laws, see
For WriterT
's instances:
To handle/modify the output of a writer computation:
02MonadTellExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadTell where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Tuple (Tuple(..))
import Control.Monad.Writer.Class (tell)
import Control.Monad.Writer (Writer, runWriter)
type Output = Int
type OtherUsefulData = String
main :: Effect Unit
main = case runWriter writeStuff of
Tuple output otherUsefulData > do
log $ "Computation's output: " <> show output
log $ "Other useful data: " <> otherUsefulData
 WriterT w a
 WriterT String Identity Int
writeStuff :: Writer OtherUsefulData Output
writeStuff = do
tell "first string! "
 some computation happens here
tell "second string! "
 some computation happens here
tell "third string!"
pure 5  final output of using MonadTell
03MonadWriterExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadWriter where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Identity (Identity(..))
import Data.Tuple (Tuple(..))
import Control.Monad.Writer.Class (tell, listen, pass, listens, censor)
import Control.Monad.Writer (Writer, runWriter)
import Control.Monad.Writer.Trans (WriterT(..))
main :: Effect Unit
main = case runWriter writeStuff of
Tuple output otherUsefulData > do
log $ "Computation's output: " <> show output
log $ "Other useful data:\n\n\t" <> otherUsefulData
type Output = Int
type OtherUsefulData = String
 w a
 WriterT String Identity Int
writeStuff :: Writer String Int
writeStuff = do
(Tuple output1 usefulData) < listen $ WriterT (
 A computation that...
Identity (
 returns this entire object as output,
 so that one can use both the computed output
 and the OtherUsefulData instance in later computations
Tuple
 the output
1
 the instance, which is appended via `tell` to
 the current instance of OtherUsefulData
"useful data"
)
)
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(Listen) 'output1' was: " <> show output1
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(Listen) 'usefulData' was: " <> usefulData
 needed to improve reading:
 turns "usefulDatasomeData" into
 "usefulData" <> "\n\n\t" <> "someData"
<> "\n\n\t"
Tuple output2 modifiedData < listens
 2) ... a modified version of the nonoutput data
 which is not appended via `tell`
 before exposing it to the do notation
(\someData > "Modified (" <> someData <> ")") $
WriterT (
 1) A computation...
Identity (
 2) that returns this entire object as output...,
 so that one can use both the computed output and...
Tuple
 the output (this is `output2`)
2
 the instance, which is appended via `tell` to
 the current instance of OtherUsefulData
"someData"
)
)
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(Listens) two: " <> show output2
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(Listens) modified Data: " <> show modifiedData
output3 < pass $ WriterT (
 A computation...
Identity (
 that returns 3 things using a nested Tuple
 nested tuple: (Tuple (Tuple one three) two)
Tuple
(Tuple
 1) the computation's output (this is `output3`)
4
 3) a function which modifies the nonoutput data
 before appending it to the current nonoutput data
 instance
(\value > "\n\n\t" <> "(in `pass`) Value is: " <> value)
)
 2) the nonoutput data
"value"
)
)
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(Pass) output2 was: " <> show output3
 needed to improve reading:
 turns "4someData" into
 "4" <> "\n\n\t" <> "someData"
<> "\n\n\t"
output4 < censor
 3) a function which modifies the nonoutput data
 before appending it to the current nonoutput data
 instance
(\value > "(in `censor`) Value is: " <> value) $ WriterT (
 1) A computation...
Identity (
 ...that returns two things
Tuple
 a) the computation's output (this is `output4`)
2
 b) the nonoutput data, which is...
"someData"
)
)
tell $ "\n\n\t" <> "(censor) output3 was: " <> show output4
pure 0
Overview
MonadThrow
MonadThrow
is used to immediately stop bind
's sequential computation and return a value of its error type because of some unforeseeable error (e.g. error encountered when connecting to a database, file that was supposed to exist did not exist, etc).
It's default implmentation is ExceptT
:
 e m a
newtype ExceptT error monad output =
ExceptT (monad (Either error output))
 Pseudosyntax: combines class and instancee together:
class (Monad m) => MonadThrow e (ExceptT e m) where
throwError :: forall a. e > ExceptT e m a
throwError a = ExceptT (pure $ Left a)
ExceptT: Before and After
Before using ExceptT
, we would write this ugly verbose code:
getName :: Effect (Either Error String)
getAge :: Effect (Either Error Int)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
eitherName < getName
case eitherName of
Left error > log $ "Error: " <> show error
Right name > do
eitherName < getAge
case maybeAge of
Left error > log $ "Error: " <> show error
Right age > do
log $ "Got name: " <> name <> " and age " <> show age
After using ExceptT
, we would write this clear readable code:
getName :: Effect (Either Error String)
getAge :: Effect (Either Error Int)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
eitherResult < runExceptT do
name < ExceptT getName
age < ExceptT getAge
pure { name, age }
case eitherResult of
Left error > log $ "Error: " <> show error
Right rec > do
log $ "Got name: " <> rec.name <> " and age " <> show rec.age
MonadError
MonadError
extends MonadThrow
by enabling a monad to catch the thrown error, attempt to handle it (by changing the error type to an output type), and then continue bind
's sequential computation. If catchError
can't handle the error, bind
's sequential computation will still stop at that point and return the value of the error type.
newtype ExceptT e m a = ExceptT (m (Either e a))
class (Monad m) => MonadError e (ExceptT e m) where
catchError :: forall a. ExceptT e m a > (e > ExceptT e m a) > ExceptT e m a
catchError (ExceptT m) handleError =
ExceptT (m >>= (\either_E_or_A > case either_E_or_A of
Left e > case handleError e of ExceptT b > b
Right a > pure $ Right a))
For example,
getFileContents :: forall m.
MonadError m =>
String >
m String
getFileContents pathToFile = do
readFileContents pathToFile `catchError` \fileNotFound >
pure defaultValue
where
defaultValue = "foo"
Derived Functions
MonadThrow
does not have any derived functions.
MonadError
has 3 functions:
catchJust
: catch only the errors you want to try to handle and ignore the otherstry
: expose the error value (if computation fails) for usage in the do notationwithResource
: whether a computation fails or succeeds, clean up resources after it is done
Do Notation
Since MonadThrow/MonadError are errorrelated, we'll show the do notation in metalanguage here since it will be harder to do so in the code examples:
 MonadThrow
stopped < throwError e
value1 < otherComputation stopped
value2 < otherComputation value1
 MonadError
mightRun < computationThatMayFail `catchError` computationWhenPreviousFailed
left_Error < try computationThatFails
right_Output < try computationThatSucceeds
output < withResource getResource cleanup computationThatUsesResource
Laws, Instances, and Miscellaneous Functions
For its laws, see
For ExceptT
's instances, see
To handle/modify the output of an error computation:
02MonadThrowExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadThrow where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Identity (Identity(..))
import Data.Either (Either(..))
import Control.Monad.Error.Class (throwError)
import Control.Monad.Except (Except, runExcept)
import Control.Monad.Except.Trans (ExceptT(..))
compute :: Except String Int > Effect Unit
compute theComputation =
case runExcept theComputation of
Left error > log $ "Failed computation! Error was: " <> error
Right output > log $ "Successful computation! Output: " <> show output
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
compute $ ExceptT (
 A computation
Identity (
 that was successful and produced output
Right 5
)
)
compute $ ExceptT (
 A computation
Identity (
 that failed and produced an error
Left "Example error!"
)
)
compute (
 a successful computation
(ExceptT (Identity (Right 5))) >>= (\right_five >
(throwError "the next bind will never run!") >>= (\leftE_or_RightA >
case leftE_or_RightA of
Left e > ExceptT (pure $ Left "This is a different error message!")
Right a > ExceptT (pure $ Right $ a + 5)
)
)
)
03MonadErrorExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadError where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Identity (Identity(..))
import Data.Either (Either(..))
import Data.Maybe (Maybe(..))
import Control.Monad.Error.Class (catchError, catchJust, try, withResource)
import Control.Monad.Except (Except, runExcept)
import Control.Monad.Except.Trans (ExceptT(..))
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
runMainFunction
log "=== Derived Functions ==="
example_catchJust
example_try
example_withResource
computationThatFailsWith :: forall e. e > Except e Int
computationThatFailsWith error = ExceptT (
 A computation
Identity (
 that failed and produced an error
Left error
)
)
computationThatSucceedsWith :: forall e a. a > Except e a
computationThatSucceedsWith a = ExceptT (
 A computation
Identity (
 that succeeded and produced the output
Right a
)
)
compute :: forall e a. Show e => Show a => Except e a > Effect Unit
compute theComputation =
case runExcept theComputation of
Left error > log $ "Failed computation! Error was: " <> show error
Right output > log $ "Successful computation! Output: " <> show output
runMainFunction :: Effect Unit
runMainFunction = do
log "catchError:"
compute (
catchError
(computationThatFailsWith "An error string")
 and a function that successfully handles the error
(\errorString > ExceptT (pure $ Right 5))
)
compute (
catchError
(computationThatFailsWith "An error string")
 and a function that cannot handle the error successfully
(\errorString > ExceptT (pure $ Left errorString))
)

data ErrorType
= FailedCompletely
 CanHandle TheseErrors
data TheseErrors
= Error1
 Error2
example_catchJust :: Effect Unit
example_catchJust = do
log "catchJust:"
 fail with an error that we ARE NOT catching...
compute
(catchJust
ignore_FailedCompletely
(computationThatFailsWith FailedCompletely)
 this function is never run because
 we ignore the "FailedCompletely" error instance
handleError
)
 fail with an error that we ARE catching...
compute
(catchJust
ignore_FailedCompletely
(computationThatFailsWith (CanHandle Error1))
 this function is run because we accept the
 error instance. It would also work if we threw `Error2`
handleError
)
ignore_FailedCompletely :: ErrorType > Maybe TheseErrors
ignore_FailedCompletely FailedCompletely = Nothing
ignore_FailedCompletely (CanHandle error) = Just error
handleError :: TheseErrors > Except ErrorType Int
handleError Error1 = ExceptT (pure $ Right 5)
handleError Error2 = ExceptT (pure $ Right 6)
instance Show ErrorType where
show FailedCompletely = "FailedCompletely"
show (CanHandle error) = "CanHandle2 (" <> show error <> ")"
instance Show TheseErrors where
show Error1 = "Error1"
show Error2 = "Error2"

example_try :: Effect Unit
example_try = do
log "try: "
compute' (try $ computationThatSucceedsWith 5)
compute' (try $ computationThatFailsWith "an error occurred!")
 In `try`, both the error and output isntance is returned,
 thereby exposing it for usage in the do notation. To account for this,
 we've modified `compute` slightly below.
 Also, since we only specify either the error type or the output type above,
 type inference can't figure out what the other type is. So,
 it thinks that the unknown type doesn't have a "Show" instance
 and the compilation fails.
 Thus, we also specify both types below to avoid this problem.
compute' :: Except String (Either String Int) > Effect Unit
compute' theComputation =
case runExcept theComputation of
Left error > log $ "Failed computation! Error was: " <> show error
Right e_or_a > case e_or_a of
Left e > log $ "Exposed error instance in do notation: " <> show e
Right a > log $ "Exposed output instance in do notation: " <> show a

data Resource = Resource
instance Show Resource where
show x = "Resource"
example_withResource :: Effect Unit
example_withResource = do
log "withResource: "
compute (
withResource
getResource
cleanupResource
computationThatUseResource
)
getResource :: Except String Resource
getResource = computationThatSucceedsWith Resource
cleanupResource :: Resource > Except String Unit
cleanupResource r =
 resource is cleaned up here
 and when finished, we return unit
ExceptT (pure $ Right unit)
computationThatUseResource :: Resource > Except String Int
computationThatUseResource r =  do
 use resource here to compute some value
ExceptT (pure $ Right 5)
An Explanation
The following explanation builds upon and modifies this article's explanation:
 Name of original author: Gabriel Gonzalez
 License: CC 4.0 International License
 Changes:
 Convert code examples to Purescript
 Renamed
attackUnit
toattack
to reduce characters per line in code sections  Omitted section on Algebraic Data Types
 Omitted section on Kleisli Composition
Why Callbacks Exist
When writing a library (e.g. GUI toolkit, game engine, etc.), one may want the enddeveloper to be able to run their own custom code at some point. In the example below, the custom code is represented by the type hole, ?doSomething
:
attack :: Target > Effect Unit
attack target = do
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then ?doSomething target
else ignoreAttack
Since the library developer does not know how the enddeveloper will use this function, they can convert ?doSomething
into a callback function that the enddeveloper supplies:
 library developer's code
attack :: Target > (Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
attack target doSomething = do
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then doSomething target
else ignoreAttack
 enddeveloper's code
attack orc reduceLifeBy50
This makes life easy for the librarydeveloper, but not for the enddeveloper as a large number of nested callbacks can make code very unreadable. (We only need to look at Node.js for an example)
The Continutation Solution
The problem is not the callback function; there is no other solution for the librarydeveloper. The problem is "where" that function appears in attackUnit
. In short, the type appears in the argument part of the function (attackUnit_arg
) instead of in the return part of the function (attackUnit_return
):
 original version (curried function)
attack :: Target > (Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
 original version (uncurried function)
attack :: (Target > (Target > Effect Unit)) > Effect Unit
 desugar the last ">" into "Function"
attack :: Function (Target > (Target > Effect Unit)) Effect Unit
 make function appear in return type
attack :: Function Target ((Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit)
 resugar ">"
attack :: Target > ((Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit)
Effect
is a monad, so we can chain multiple sequential computations like that together using bind
/>>=
. If we can do that for Effect
, why not do so for every monad? This changes our type signature of attack
:
attack_no_monad :: Target > ((Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit)
attack_monad :: Target > ((Target > monad Unit) > monad Unit)
That's a lot of code to write each time, so it can be converted into a newtype
:
newtype ContT return monad input =
ContT ((input > monad return) > monad return)
attack_no_monad :: Target > ((Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit)
attack_monad :: Target > ((Target > monad Unit) > monad Unit)
attack_cont :: Target > ContT Unit Effect Target
To create a ContT
, we create a function whose only argument is the callback function:
ContT (\callbackFunction > do
 everything else we did beforehand...
callbackFunction arg
 everything else we did afterwards...
)
Let's implement it for attack
and compare the two approaches:
attack_original :: Target > (Target > Effect Unit) > Effect Unit
attack_original target doSomething = do
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then doSomething target
else ignoreAttack
attack_contT :: Target > ContT Unit Effect Target
attack_contT target = ContT (\doSomething > do
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then doSomething target
else ignoreAttack
)
And if we didn't want to use a monad, we could use Identity
as a placeholder monad:
type Cont return input = ContT return Identity input
Comparing ContT to Another Function
Let's play with ContT
for a bit and see what it reminds us of:
 Original version
newtype ContT return monad input =
ContT ((input > monad return) > monad return)
 Let's newtype a version of `ContT` when `Identity` is its monad:
newtype ContIdentity return input =
ContIdentity ((input > Identity return) > Identity return)
 Since `Identity` is merely a placeholer monad,
 let's remove it, and see what the resulting function's signature is:
contDesugared :: forall input return. ((input > return) > return)
 and if we wanted to run `contDesugared`,
 we'd need an initial `input` value:
runCont :: forall i r. ((i > r) > r) > (i > r) > r
runCont contDesugared callbackFunction = contDesugared callbackFunction
 Hmm... Doesn't that function's type and body look familiar?
 ((i > r) > r) > (i > r) > r
apply :: forall a b. (a > b) > a > b
apply function arg = function arg
infixr 0 apply as $
Exactly. ContT
is just a monad transformer for the apply
/$
function. Let's compare them further:
print 10
 ==
print $ 10
 ==
apply print (10)
 ==
runCont (Cont (\f > f (10))) print
 which reduces to
(\f > f (10)) print
 which reduces to
print (10)
When You Need Two or More Callback Functions
If attack
is modified, so that it requires two callback functions, ?doSomethingWithDamage
and doSomethingWithBoth
, it would seem that our nice solution from above would no longer work since we can only specify one of the two functions:
attackWith :: Target > Weapon > ContT Unit Effect Target
attackWith target weapon = ContT (\only1CallbackFunction > do
damage < calculateDamageFor weapon (modifiedBy 1.5)
?doSomethingWithDamage damage
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then ?doSomethingWithBoth target damage
else ignoreAttack
)
The solution is to pass in a callback function that takes a sum type as its argument. When using ContT
/Cont
, the callback function is usually called k
, so we'll do that here, too:
data AllPossibleInputs
 where each constructor wraps the arguments
 that will be used in a function
= DoSomethingWithDamage Damage
 DoSomethingWithBoth Target Damage
 Note: This approach requires the callback function to return the same
 `monadType returnType` type for each output.
callbackFunction :: AllPossibleInputs > Effect Unit
callbackFunction (DoSomethingWithBoth t d) = doSomethingWithBoth t d
callbackFunction (DoSomethingWithDamage d) = doSomethingWithDamage d
doSomethingWithBoth :: Target > Damage > Effect Unit
 implementation
doSomethingWithDamage :: Target > Effect Unit
 implementation
attackWith :: Target > Weapon > ContT Unit Effect Target
attackWith target weapon = ContT (\callback > do
damage < calculateDamageFor weapon (modifiedBy 1.5)
callback (DoSomethingWithDamage damage)
valid < isTargetValid target
if valid
then callback (DoSomethingWithBoth target damage)
else ignoreAttack
)
(I think one might be able to get around the runtime box overhead imposed by AllPossibleInputs
by using typelevel programming and Variant
, the open Either
type.)
Consider Your Perspective
If you are...  ... and you come across a situation where...  ... then you should... 

a library developer  you want to use a callback function  move it from the function's LHS to its RHS using ContT . If it should take different kinds of input, define a sum type as demonstrated above. 
a developer using a library  you need to use a function that requires or returns a ContT  understand that you need to specify what to do at specific points by passing in a callback function via runCont /runContT . You may also need to write a callback function that takes a sum type like that demonstrated above as its input 
MonadCont
MonadCont
, the Continuation Monad, is used to handle callback hell among other things.
 r m a
newtype ContT return monad input =
ContT ((input > monad return) > monad return)
 PseudoSyntax: combine class and instance into one block
 and "n" represents ContT:
class (Monad m) <= MonadCont r (ContT r m) where
callCC :: forall a. (forall b. (a > n b) > n a) > n a
callCC :: forall a. (forall b. ContT b m a) > ContT r m a
Derived Functions
None!
Laws, Instances, and Miscellaneous Functions
There aren't any laws!
Instances:
To handle/modify the output of a continuation computation:
03MonadContExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadCont where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Control.Monad.Cont.Trans (ContT(..), runContT)
 The sum type example we mentioned beforehand got long
 and introduces a lot of noise. So, we'll do a very simple
 example using Effect and `log` instead.
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
runContT (exampleCallCC 5) log
log "\n\n"
runContT (exampleCallCC 20) (\s > do
log $ "Indenting the string"
log $ "\t\t" <> s
)
exampleCallCC :: Int > ContT Unit Effect String
exampleCallCC arg = ContT $ \k > do
log "do some computations here..."
k $ "callback with arg: " <> show arg
log "do some other computations here..."
k $ "callback with arg: " <> show 1.5
log "do some other computations here..."
Other Monad Transformers
Usable Now
RWS
RWS a convenience monad that combines ReaderT
, WriterT
, and StateT
into the same monad type
MaybeT
MaybeT, a computation the returns a Maybe a
. The below code snippet shows why you'd use it and when:
Before (ugly verbose code):
getName :: Effect (Maybe String)
getAge :: Effect (Maybe Int)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
maybeName < getName
case maybeName of
Nothing > log "Didn't work"
Just name > do
maybeAge < getAge
case maybeAge of
Nothing > log "Didn't work"
Just age > do
log $ "Got name: " <> name <> " and age " <> show age
After (clear readable code):
getName :: Effect (Maybe String)
getAge :: Effect (Maybe Int)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
result < runMaybeT do
name < MaybeT getName
age < MaybeT getAge
pure { name, age }
case result of
Nothing > log "Didn't work"
Just rec > do
log $ "Got name: " <> rec.name <> " and age " <> show rec.age
You can refer to Monday Morning Haskell's post on MaybeT for more context. Replace IO
with Effect
and you'll get the idea.
ListT
ListT, a monad that returns a List a
. In addition, it provides the regular list functions you'd expect
It follows the same idea as MaybeT
above.
MonadGen
MonadGen (not included in the purescripttransformers
library): generates random data. (This is used in the Testing library later. We'll cover it when we get there.)
MonadRec
MonadRec (not included in the purescripttransformers
library): guarantees stack safety for monad transformers. For a tutorial on this type class, see Design Patterns/Stack Safety.md
.
Sketches of Monadic Control Flow
I'd like to clean this up and provide more, but I don't know what it's copyright is. Thus, I'm only linking to it here. The below link is a visual idea as to what occurs when one uses some of these monad transformers: Monads, a Field Guide
Requires More Understanding
We previously mentioned that all lawful type classes that find their roots in Category Theory have duals. The following are monad transformers for the duals of some of the monad transformers we covered here.
To quickly summarize how they work, map
ping a monadic function would change its output type whereas map
ping a comonadic function would change its input type. If the definition of Functor
's map
for a monadic function is compose
/<<<
, the definition for a comonadic function is composeFlipped
/>>>
. See the CoMonads by Example repository for a better overview of these type classes and their implementations.
 CoMonadTrans, the Transformer type class for Comonads.
 CoMonadTraced
 CoMonadStore
 CoMonadAsk
 CoMonadEnv
How MonadTrans Works
Reviewing Old Ideas
Thus far, we've overviewed individual Monad Transformers. However, we have not yet combined them into a "stack" that allows us to write anything useful. It's now time to reveal this. It will look similar to something we've seen before:
class LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad sourceMonad targetMonad where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. sourceMonad a > targetMonad a }
liftSourceMonad :: sourceMonad ~> targetMonad
instance LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad Box2 Box1 where {
liftSourceMonad :: forall a. Box2 a > Box1 a }
liftSourceMonad :: Box2 ~> Box1
liftSourceMonad (Box2 a) = Box1 a
When we introduced LiftSourceIntoTargetMonad
, we mentioned that implementing this idea for two monads might be much more complicated than the above implementation. Why? Because we were referring to the newtyped function monads we explained in this folder (not exactly something you want to introduce to a new learner immediately).
We stated beforehand that MonadState
's default implmenetation is StateT
. bind
only returns the same monad type it originally received. Thus, we have a problem if we want to use two effects at once. For example, if we to write a program that uses state manipulation effects (i.e. uses MonadState
) and some other effects in the same computation (i.e. another type class introduced in this folder like MonadReader
).
However, because our monadic newtyped functions serve only to "transform" the base monad by handling all the 'behind the scenes' stuff, it's actually possible to support all of these effects within the same monadic type. One monadic type is nested in another. This is where the "stack" idea comes from. In other words, we need to define a way to "lift" a monadic newtyped function into another. However, the direction should go both ways (former lifted into latter and latter lifted into former).
Since this idea is an abstraction that will repeat, will define it as a type class called, MonadTrans
:
class MonadTrans t where
lift :: forall m a. Monad m => m a > t m a
 using clearer type names, one should read it as
class MonadTrans transformerCloserToBaseMonad where
lift :: forall transformerFartherFromBaseMonad a.
Monad transformerFartherFromBaseMonad =>
transformerFartherFromBaseMonad a >
transformerCloserToBaseMonad transformerFartherFromBaseMonad a
Explaining Its Process
 Define a type class (e.g.
MonadState
) that has a default implementation via (e.g.StateT
)  Define a type class (e.g.
MonadTrans
) that enables one monad to be lifted into another monad  To enable multiple monadic newtyped functions to run in another one (e.g.
StateT
), implementMonadTrans
for that monad (e.g. StateT's instance)  To grant multiple monadic newtyped functions the capabilities of one type class (e.g.
MonadState
viaStateT
), make those other monads implement the one monad's type class (e.g.MonadState
) in a special way (see below for a pattern):
Looking at those implementations above, we can see a general pattern (there are some exceptions to this due to how the types need to be handled, but this is generally true):
 Require one of the types in the instance context to be an instance of
MonadState
 Implement the type class by lifting the instance into the monad and delegate that monad's implementation to that instance. Again, the monadic newtyped functions are merely handling the "behind the scenes" stuff of the effects. At the end of the day, it's still the base monad that actually makes the whole thing work.
Thus, [Word]T
provides a default implementation for Monad[Word]
and makes it possible to grant the base monad its capability.
In short, this type class enables us to use all of the functions from each type class explained in this folder
Using MonadTrans
When we wrote code for our MonadState
example, we had something that looked like this:
type Output = Int
type StateType = Int
computation :: State StateType Output
computation = do
modify_ (_ + 1)
modify_ (_ * 10)
modify_ (_ + 1)
main :: Effect Unit
main = case runState computation 0 of
Tuple output state > do
log $ "Result of computation: " <> show output
log $ "End state of computation: " <> show state
The above code works because we're using MonadState
behind the scenes via StateT
's instance. However, this function's type signature restricts us to only using StateT
for computations. If we want to define computation
, so that it can use functions from MonadWriter
, we'll need to use a different approach. Let's fix this one step at a time.
First, we'll abstract our State
type into MonadState
by using a type constraint:
type Output = Int
type StateType = Int
computation :: forall m => MonadState StateType m => m Output
computation = do
modify_ (_ + 1)
modify_ (_ * 10)
modify_ (_ + 1)
 use a helper function to tell the type inferer that
 `computation`'s `m` type is `StateT`
runProgram :: State StateType Output > Tuple Output StateType
runProgram s = runState s 0
main :: Effect Unit
main = case runProgram computation of
Tuple string state > do
log $ "Result of computation: " <> string
log $ "End state of computation: " <> show state
Second, we'll add another type class constraint for MonadAsk
to expose it's tell
function:
type Output = Int
type StateType = Int
type NonOutputData = String
computation :: forall m
. MonadState StateType m
=> MonadAsk NonOuputData m
=> m Output
computation = do
modify_ (_ + 1)
tell "Modified state by adding 1"
currentState < modify (_ * 10)
tell $ "Modified state by multiplying by 10. It is now "
<> show currentState
modify_ (_ + 1)
Great! We now have a single computation that can do both state manipulation and use tell
. However, how does that affect runProgram
?
runProgram :: StateT_and_WriterT > StateT_and_WriterT_Output
runProgram s =  ???
When we used a monad (e.g. WriterT
) to run a computation, we didn't need to specify the monad type being used. So, we used Identity
as a placeholder monad and used the type alias, Writer
, to make it easier to write. To use another computational monad (e.g. StateT
) inside of Writer
, we now need to specify what that monad is by reexposing the T
part of WriterT
and replacing Identity
with StateT
. Putting it differently, WriterT
is now transforming the monad, StateT
with additional effects, which is likewise transforming the base monad, Identity
with additional effects:
 simple writer computation
writer :: Writer NonOutputData Output > Tuple NonOuputData Output
writer w = runWriter w
 reexpose the T part of WriterT
writer :: WriterT NonOutputData Identity Output > Tuple NonOuputData Output
writer w = runWriter w
 swap `Identity` with a type alias called Computation
type Computation = Identity
writer :: WriterT NonOutputData Computation Output > Tuple NonOuputData Output
writer w = runWriterT w
 Since the types will get long soon, break up the type signature
type Computation = Identity
writer :: WriterT NonOutputData Computation Output
> Tuple NonOuputData Output
writer w = runWriterT w
 StateT with its T exposed but set to Identity still
state :: StateT State Identity Output > Tuple Output State
state s = runState s initialState
 realias Computation to StateT
 and use `runWriterT` instead of `runWriter`
type Computation = StateT State Identity Output
writer :: WriterT NonOutputData Computation Output
> Tuple NonOuputData Output
writer w = runWriterT w
 getting rid of the type alias and inlining its type
 and rename the function's name to 'runProgram'
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity stateOutput) Output
> finalOutput
runProgram ws = ???
 Realizing that `StateT` with all three of its types specified
 now has kind "Type" and is thus no longer a monad ("Type > Type"),
 we remove the `stateOutput` type to increase
 StateT's kind from "Type" to "Type > Type", making it a monad again
 so that it satisfies WriterT's monadic type requirement
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity) Output
> finalOutput
runProgram ws = ???
 To run StateT, we also need an `initialState` argument. Let's add it
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity) Output
> State
> finalOutput
runProgram ws initialState = ???
A few questions arise as we do this:
 What should
finalOutput
's type be if we combine the two monad transformers together?  How should
program
's body be implemented?
The types give us a few clues for a topdown explanation. First (answering question 2), we realize that State
's monad type is still Identity
since no other monad type is inside of StateT
. Thus, we know that we'll need to use runState
to unpack its results. Using this line of reasoning, we'll also need to use runWriterT
instead of runWriter
because the WriterT
type is using a nonIdentity
monad.
That leaves us with two possible options:
runWriterT (runState ws initialState)
runState (runWriterT ws) initialState
Second (answering question 1), we know that running a StateT
returns Tuple stateOutput state
and running a WriterT
returns Tuple writerOutput nonOutputData
. That means we'll likely get something close to one of these options:
 Both outputs are returned using a Tuple that groups them together:
Tuple (Tuple stateOutput state) (Tuple writerOutput nonOutputData)
(or vice versa in its order)
 The output of one monad is the
stateOutput
(a) orwriterOutput
(b) of the other: a:
Tuple (Tuple writerOutput nonOutputData) state
 b:
Tuple (Tuple stateOutput state ) nonOutputData
 a:
Since we're running one monad inside of another, the second option seems more likely.
The question is, which one is correct?
Let's continue by examining runStateT
/runState
and runWriterT
/runWriter
. We know that runMonad
is just a wrapper around runMonadT
when the monad is Identity
:
newtype StateT s m a =
StateT (s > m (Tuple a s))
runState :: StateT state Identity output > state > Tuple output state
runState s initialState = unwrapIdentity $ runStateT s initialState
runStateT :: StateT state monad output > state > monad Tuple output state
runStateT (StateT function) initialState = function initialState
newtype WriterT w m a =
WriterT (m (Tuple a w))
runWriter :: WriterT nonOutputData Identity output > Tuple output nonOutputData
runWriter w = unwrapIdentity $ runWriterT w
runWriterT :: WriterT nonOutputData monad output > monad Tuple output nonOutputData
runWriterT w = w
They key takeaway here is that run[Monad]T
returns the same monad that is specified in [Monad]T
. Looking at our function again...
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity) Output
> State
> finalOutput
runProgram ws initialState = ???
... running the WriterT NonOuputData monad output
via runWriterT
will return its monad
type. Since that monad type is StateT State Identity Output
, we will take the output of running WriterT
(which outputs a StateT
) and run the output via runState
since StateT
's monad type is Identity
:
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity) Output
> finalOutput
runProgram ws = runState (runWriterT ws) initialState
That answers the second question (how to implement runProgram
), but it still leaves us wondering what finalOutput
is. This is easier to determine if we just look at runState
and runWriterT
again:
runWriterT :: WriterT nonOutputData monad output > monad Tuple output nonOutputData
 reducing `monad Tuple output nonOutputData` to something easier, `m a`
type A = Tuple output nonOutputData
runWriterT :: WriterT nonOutputData monad output > monad A
 specializing `monad` to `StateT State identity`
type A = Tuple output nonOutputData
runWriterT :: WriterT nonOutputData (StateT state Identity) output
> (StateT state Identity A)
 reexposing the `a` in `StateT`
runWriterT :: WriterT nonOutputData (StateT state Identity) output
> (StateT state Identity (Tuple output nonOutputData))
 Looking at what `runState` returns, we see
runState :: StateT state Identity output > state > Tuple output state
 Replacing StateT's `output` type with `Tuple output NonOuputData`
 we get this:
runState :: StateT state Identity (Tuple writerOutput nonOutputData)
> state
> Tuple (Tuple writerOutput nonOutputData) state
 Thus, runProgram's type signature is:
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (StateT State Identity Output) Output
> State
> Tuple (Tuple output NonOuputData) State
runProgram ws initialState =
runState (runWriterT ws) initialState
 hidng `StateT`'s monad type, `Identity`, gets us this:
runProgram :: WriterT NonOutputData (State state) Output
> state
> Tuple (Tuple Output NonOuputData) state
runProgram ws initialState =
runState (runWriterT ws) initialState
Reordering the Monad Stack
What happens, however, if we flip the order of the stack? We'll see that the arguments get flipped and the output gets flipped.
runProgram :: StateT state (Writer NonOutputData) Output
> state
> Tuple (Tuple Output state) NonOuputData
runProgram computation initialState =
runWriter (runStateT computation initialState)
While the computation's definition did not change, how the code gets run does change.
This creates one problem with "monad stacks:" the order of how the monad transformers are run can change how the computation is evaluated. We'll cover this in more detail later.
Monad Transformer Stacks
You will want to bookmark this page.
Generalizing the idea we discovered in the previous file into a pattern, we get something like this:
program :: forall m
. MonadState StateType m
=> MonadWriter NonOutputData m
 => other needed type classes here in any order...
=> m ProgramFinalOutputType
program = do
 use all the functions from the type classes
 StateT state monad output
 "IndexN possibleInput monad typeClassOutput"
runProgram :: Index3 input3 (  top of the stack
Index2 input2 (
Index1 input1 (
Index0 input0  =
Identity   bottom of the stack (the base monad)
output0  =
) output1
) output2
) output3
 > input0  =
 > input1   all needed initial args to
 > input2   `run[Word]T`/`runWord` go here
 > input3  =
> Tuple (
Tuple (
Tuple (
Tuple (
computationOutput
output3
)
output2
)
output1
)
output0
)
runProgram program { args } =
runIndex0 (  bottom of the stack
runIndex1T (
runIndex2T (
runIndex3T program index3Args  top of the stack
) index2Args
) index1Args
) index0Args
Note: when using ExceptT
, MaybeT
, or ListT
, the outputs won't necessarily be Tuple
s.
Monad Trans
MonadTrans
enables one computational monad to run inside another, thereby exposing multiple type class' functions for usage in bind
/>>=
/ do notation in the same function. It enables one to write an entire program via newtyped function monads (or functions with monadic syntax).
class MonadTrans t where
lift :: forall m a. m a > t m a
Laws
Instances
02MonadTransExample.purs
module ComputingWithMonads.MonadTrans where
import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Data.Tuple (Tuple(..))
 State
import Control.Monad.State.Class (class MonadState, get, gets, modify_)
import Control.Monad.State (State, runState)
 Writer
import Control.Monad.Writer.Class (class MonadWriter, tell)
import Control.Monad.Writer.Trans (WriterT, runWriterT)
program :: forall m.
MonadState Int m =>
MonadWriter String m =>
m String
program = do
currentState < get
tell $ "Current State is now: " <> show currentState
modify_ (_ + 10)
gets show
run :: forall a. WriterT String (State Int) a
> Int
> Tuple (Tuple a String) Int
run function initialState = runState (runWriterT function) initialState
main :: Effect Unit
main = case run program 0 of
Tuple (Tuple output nonOutputData) nextState > do
log $ "Finished!"
log $ "(Computation) final output: " <> show output
log $ "(Writer) nonoutput data: " <> show nonOutputData
log $ "(State) next state: " <> show nextState
let (Tuple (Tuple o _ ) _ ) = run program 8
log $ "Using pattern matching to get the computation's output: " <> show o
Drawbacks of MTL
The following lists some of the issues one will face when using MTL.
Note:
 Some of the below flaws may be specific only to Haskell and not Purescript.
 In the below sources, any mention of Haskell's
IORef
is equivalent to Purescript'sRef
: a global mutable variable.
MonadState
Allows Only One State Manipulation Type
First, due to the functional dependency from m
to s
in MonadState
's definition, it's impossible to do two different state manipulations within the same function. For example...
f :: forall m ouput.
=> MonadState Int m
=> MonadState String m
> m output
f = do
whichValue < get
The compiler will complain because it doesn't know which value it should 'get'. See the answer to Haskell  Chaining two states using StateT monad transformer
One solution to this is to store all states in one larger state type and then use a Lens
to access/change it:
type IntAndString = { i :: Int, s :: String }
f :: forall m output.
=> MonadState IntAndString m
> m output
The second solution is to use typelevel programming to specify which MonadState
we are referring to via an id
Symbol. This would force us to change MonadState
's definition to:
class (Monad m) <= MonadState (id :: Symbol) state m  m > state
state :: forall a. Proxy id > (s > m (Tuple a s)) > m a
_i :: Proxy "i"
_i = Proxy
_s :: Proxy "s"
_s = Proxy
f :: forall m ouput.
=> MonadState "i" Int m
=> MonadState "s" String m
> m output
f = do
theInt < get _i
theString < get _s
However, I'm not sure what are the pros/cons of this approach, but this is similar to how Run
(explained in the Free
folder) enables two different state manipulations.
MonadState
& MonadWriter
lose their state on a runtime error
If a runtime error occurs in a computation that uses MonadState
or MonadWriter
, then the states in both MonadState
and MonadWriter
are lost (because the computation halts).
WriterT
& RWST
has a "space leak" problem
This is largely due to WriterT
's usage of Monoid
. The 'fix' is to drop some of its features and use a StateT
instead. See Writer Monads and Space Leaks  Infinite Negative Utility
Since RWST
also encodes things via WriterT
, it also suffers from this problem.
Nsquaredish Monad Transformer Instances
Whenever one wants to define a new monad transformer (e.g. MonadAuthenticate
) to encode some effect, one must define ~n^2
instances:
 1
MonadAuthenticate
instance for each[Word]T
type viaMonadTrans
to lift the monadic newtypedAuthenticateT
function.
 Given this stack of monad transformers
runCode :: AuthenticateT Credentials (StateT state (ReaderT value Identity Unit))
 Each monadic function type (e.g. StateT, ReaderT, etc.) must
 have an instance for MonadAuthenticate so it can lift the
 AuthenticateT computation into the next monad.
 n instances for the monadic newtyped
AuthenticateT
function, so that it can lift its computation into all the other monad transformer type classes (e.g.AuthenticateT
>MonadState
,MonadWriter
, etc.)
 Given this stack of monad transformers
runCode :: ReaderT Value (StateT state (AuthenticateT Credentials Identity Unit))
 AuthenticateT must lift ReaderT and StateT into an AuthenticateT
 monadic type.
In short, we define that many instances so that the order of the monad stack does not matter as much. If our stack has an ExceptT
somewhere in there, where that type occurs will change the final output.
Note: I say roughly ~n^2
because apparently there are some cases where "lifting" a function would break a law (or something).
Monad transformer stacks' type signatures get complicated quickly
Related to the previous point, but the type signatures start getting crazy very quickly. For new beginners who are just learning about monad transformers, this can be quite offsetting:
 as an example using pseudosyntax...
f :: StateT State (ReaderT reader (WriterT writer (ExceptT error Effect output) output))
The Order of the Monad Transformer Stack Matters
We mentioned this previously when covering how to use a monad transformer:
type Output = Int
type StateType = Int
type NonOutputData = String
computation :: forall m
. MonadState StateType m
=> MonadAsk NonOuputData m
=> m Output
computation = do
modify_ (_ + 1)
tell "Modified state by adding 1"
currentState < modify (_ * 10)
tell $ "Modified state by multiplying by 10. It is now "
<> show currentState
modify_ (_ + 1)
 Both `program1` and `program2` support the necessary
 capabilities to run `computation`.
runProgram1 :: WriterT NonOutputData (State state) Output
> state
> Tuple (Tuple Output NonOuputData) state
runProgram1 initialState =
runState (runWriterT computation) initialState
runProgram2 :: StateT state (Writer NonOutputData) Output
> state
> Tuple (Tuple Output state) NonOuputData
runProgram2 initialState =
runWriter (runStateT computation initialState)
Imagine if one of these was ExceptT
. That monad transformer's location in the stack can affect how the computation works and whether it works as expected.
The ReaderT
/Capability
Design Pattern
The ReaderT
and Capability
Design Patterns
Some of the drawbacks of MTL (though not all of them) are what led to the ReaderT
Design Pattern from which I originally got many of the above problems.
This design pattern was interpreted by others in a different way, so that it led to the Capability Design Pattern post.
The main point of the Capability Design Pattern
is that the Monad[Word]
type classes define what effects will be used in some function, not necessarily how that will be accomplished. This key insight is what makes testing our business logic code much simpler.
For a clearer picture of this idea, see the Three Layer Haskell Cake.
Looking at the above from a topdown perspective, we get this:
Layer Level  Onion Architecture Term  General idea 

Layer 4  Core  Strong types with welldefined properties and their pure, total functions that operate on them 
Layer 3  Domain  the "business logic" code which uses effects 
Layer 2  API  the "production" or "test" monad which "links" these effects/capabilties to their implementations: (i.e. a newtyped ReaderT and its instances) 
Layer 1  Infrastructure  the platformspecific framework/monad we'll use to implement some special effects/capabilities (i.e. Node.ReadLine /Halogen /StateT ) 
Layer 0  Machine Code (no equivalent onion term)  the "base" monad that runs the program (i.e. production: Effect /Aff ; test: Identity /Trampoline ) 
Putting it into code, we would get something that looks like this:
 Layer 4
newtype Name = Name String
getName :: Name > String
getName (Name s) = s
 Layer 3
 Capability type classes:
class (Monad m) <= LogToScreen m where
log :: String > m Unit
class (Monad m) <= GetUserName m where
getUserName :: m Name
 Business logic that uses these capabilities
 which makes it easier to test
program :: forall m.
LogToScreen m =>
GetUserName m =>
m Unit
program = do
log "What is your name?"
name < getUserName
log $ "You name is" <> (getName name)
 Layer 2 (Production)
 Environment type
type Environment = { someValue :: Int }  mutable state, readonly values, etc. go in this record
 newtyped ReaderT that implements the capabilities
newtype AppM a = AppM (ReaderT Environment Effect a)
derive newtype instance functorTestM :: Functor AppM
derive newtype instance applyAppM :: Apply AppM
derive newtype instance Applicative AppM
derive newtype instance bindAppM :: Bind AppM
derive newtype instance monadAppM :: Monad AppM
derive newtype instance monadEffect :: MonadEffect AppM
runApp :: AppM a > Environment > Effect a
runApp (AppM reader_T) env = runReaderT reader_T env
 Layer 1 (the implementations of each instance)
instance LogToScreen AppM where
log = liftEffect <<< Console.log
instance GetUserName AppM where
getUserName = liftEffect do
 some effectful thing that produces a string
pure $ Name "some name"
 Layer 0 (production)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let globalEnvironmentInfo =  global stuff
runApp program globalEnvironmentInfo

 Layer 2 (test)
 newtyped ReaderT that implements the capabilities for testing
newtype TestM a = TestM (Reader Environment a)
derive newtype instance functorTestM :: Functor TestM
derive newtype instance applyTestM :: Apply TestM
derive newtype instance Applicative TestM
derive newtype instance bindTestM :: Bind TestM
derive newtype instance monadTestM :: Monad TestM
runTest :: TestM a > Environment > a
runTest (TestM reader) env = runReader reader env
 Layer 1 (test: implementations of instances)
instance LogToScreen TestM where
log _ = pure unit  no need to implement this
instance GetUserName TestM where
getUserName = pure (Name "John")  general idea. Don't do this in real code.
 Layer 0 (test)
main :: Effect Unit
main = do
let globalEnvironmentInfo =  mutable state, readonly values, etc.
assert $ (runTest program globalEnvironmentInfo) == correctValue
When to Use it: ReaderT Design Pattern vs Monad Transformer Stack?
Scope of Code  Example  Use 

Programming in the large (e.g. Application Structure)  Connecting impure effects to their pure type classes via an API layer  ReaderT 
Programming in the small (e.g. a single complicated computation)  Doing one particular computation that uses a number of effects that others in the surrounding context do not use  Monad Transformer Stack 
Free
Overview
This folder will do 4 things:
 explain what the Free monad is
 explain how it can be used to create a pure abstract syntax tree (AST) and interpret that AST into an impure but useful computation
 explain why one should use
Run
instead ofFree
 explain the limitations of
Free
/Run
.
Free
monads are another way to structure the architecture of your program. However, I wouldn't recommend using this particular way of structuring your program. See this folder's "Drawbacks of Free" for some examples.
Moreover, the gist of Free
monads is clearly explained by Nate Faubion in his overview of Free
and CoFree
: Unrolling Free & Cofree (stop at 1:19:23) (Actual YouTube video name is "PS Unscripted  Free from Tree & Halogen VDOM"). If you watch that video, you do not need to read through the "Why Use the Free Monad" folder's content.
The Free
approach deals with the "bind
forces us to return the same monad type it receives" restriction by using only one monad. Rather than building a large function that is composed of smaller functions that runs once the initial arguments are given to it (i.e. MTL
), the Free
approach will create an Abstract Sytax Tree (AST) that describes the desired computation in a pure way. This tree is later "interpreted" via a NaturalTransformation
into a base monad (i.e. Effect
) that runs those computations in an inpure way. In other words, something akin to
type DSL = DomainSpecificLanguage
type AbstractSyntaxTree output = Free DSL output
defineProgram :: AbstractSyntaxTree
defineProgram =  implementation
runProgram :: AbstractSyntaxTree ~> Effect
runProgram =  implementation
What Are "Free" SomeTypeClass
Types
When we first introduced type classes, we explained that they are an encapsulation of 23 things:
 (always) A definition of 1 or more functions/values' type signatures
 (almost always) Laws to which a concrete type's implementation of said type class must adhere
 (frequently) Functions that a type obtains for free once the core defintion/values are implemented
Moreover, some type classes combine two or more type classes together
Thus, SomeTypeClass
isn't so much a 'thing' as much as it is an expectation. We don't say that f
is a SomeTypeClass
(for it could implement it in various ways); rather, we are really saying that f
has an instance that implements SomeTypeClass
's specialFunction
function in such a way that it adheres to SomeTypeClass
's laws. As we saw from the MTL folder, even StateT
, a newtyped function, can be called a Functor
because it meets all of these requirements.
However, whenever we had a type that we wanted to use in a Functor
like way, we needed to define its Functor
instance before we could use it in that way. In other words, we have to write a lot of boilerplate code.
What if we could grant Functor
like capabailities for any type without implementing such an instance? That is the idea behind "free" type classes.
Essentially, a "free" TypeClassName
is a boxlike type, Wrapper
, that grants TypeClassName
capabilities to some other type, A
, by providing the necessary structure for implementing a lawabiding TypeClassName
instance for Wrapper
.
In short, to create a "free" SomeTypeClass
, we do 2 things:
 Translate the type class into a higherkinded type
 Do the following for each of the type class' functions, starting with the easiest function:
 Translate one type class' function into a constructor for the new type
 Try to implement all required instances using the constructor
 Fix problems that arise
A "Free" Monoid
When we look at Monoid
, we see this type class:
class Monoid a where {
append :: a > a > a  include Semigroup's function }
mempty :: a
 "hello" <> "world" == "helloworld"
 "hello" <> mempty == "hello"
 mempty <> "hello" == "hello"
Let's follow the instructions from above: First, we'll translate the type class into a data type that can take any type:
data FreeMonoid a
Second and starting with the easier function mempty
, we'll translate it into a constructor for FreeMonoid
. mempty
is easy, since it translates into a placeholder constructor:
data FreeMonoid a
= Mempty
instance Semigroup (FreeMonoid a) where
append a Mempty = a
append Mempty a = a
instance Monoid (FreeMonoid a) where
mempty = Mempty
append
is a bit harder. We need to store a value of type a
, so we can try this:
data FreeMonoid a
= Mempty
 Append a
However, if we try to implement this as (Append a1) <> (Append a2)
, we can't combine a1
and a2
. Rather, we need to store both an a1
and an a2
in a single Append
:
data FreeMonoid a
= Mempty
 a1 a2
 Append a a
 since `Mempty` is our placeholder instance, we can use it
 to fill the a2's spot
instance Semigroup (FreeMonoid a) where
append Mempty Mempty = Mempty
append a Mempty = a
append Mempty a = a
append (Append a1 Mempty) (Append a2 Mempty) = Append a1 a2
 Works!
(Append a1 Mempty) <> (Append a2 Mempty) == Append a1 a2
 ...well, not quite!
(Append a1 a2) <> (Append a3 Mempty) ==  ???
Our previous solution doesn't work either. If the failure case above is just another append, we get something like this:
((Append a1 Mempty) <> (Append a2 Mempty)) <> (Append a3 Mempty)
Rather than defining a second a
for Append
, what if we nested the types together? This approach makes our code finally work:
data FreeMonoid a
= Mempty
 a1 Mempty / Append a
 Append a (FreeMonoid a )
instance Semigroup (FreeMonoid a) where
append Mempty Mempty = Mempty
append a Mempty = a
append Mempty a = a
append (Append a memptyOrAppend) otherAppend =
Append a (memptyOrAppend <> otherAppend)
instance Monoid (FreeMonoid a) where
mempty = Mempty
The above code is the exact same thing as a familiar data type, List
:
data List a
= Nil
 Cons a (List a)
instance Semigroup (List a) where
append Nil Nil = Nil
append a Nil = a
append Nil a = a
append (Cons head tail) otherList =
Cons head (tail <> otherList)
instance Monoid (List a) where
mempty = Nil
Thus, we say that List
is a "free" monoid because by wrapping some type (e.g. Fruit
) into a List
, we get a monoid instance for Fruit
for free:
data Fruit
= Apple
 Orange
 Banana
(Cons (Apple Nil)) <> (Cons Banana Nil) == Cons (Apple (Cons Banana Nil))
This idea can be useful for when we have types that can't implement specific type classes.
What Is and Is Not The Free Monad
Since List
was the free monoid type, what would be the free monad type?
 monad class fully expanded...
class Monad f where
map :: forall a. (a > b) > f a > f b
apply :: forall a. f (a > b) > f a > f b
bind :: forall a. f a > (a > f b) > f b
pure :: forall a. a > f a
Using our previous instructions...
In short, to create a "free"
SomeTypeClass
, we do 3 things:
 Translate the type class into a higherkinded type
 Do the following for each of the type class' functions, starting with the easiest function:
 Translate one type class' function into a constructor for the new type
 Try to implement all required instances using the constructor
 Fix problems that arise
We'll start with the simplest function, pure
:
data FreeMonad a
= Pure a
instance Applicative FreeMonad where
pure a = Pure a
instance Functor FreeMonad where
map f (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
instance Apply FreeMonad where
apply (Pure f) (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
instance Bind FreeMonad where
bind (Pure a) f = f a
Well, that was easy... Wasn't this the same implementation as Identity
from before? You are correct.
data Identity a = Identity a
instance Applicative Identity where
pure a = Identity a
instance Functor Identity where
map f (Identity a) = Identity (f a)
instance Apply Identity where
apply (Identity f) (Identity a) = Identity (f a)
instance Bind Identity where
bind (Identity a) f = f a
We can see here that Identity
is a free Functor
, Apply
, Applicative
, Bind
, and therefore Monad
for any type with kind Type
.
However, that's not what others mean when they talk about the free Monad
type. The Free
monad makes any Functor
(i.e. type with kind Type > Type
) a monad.
There are other "free" type classes (mentioned below). AFAIK, these types were not discovered at the same time by the same people. Rather, they were discovered over time as solutions to specific problems. See below for these types:
 Coyoneda  docs & source code  a free
Functor
for any type of kindType > Type
.  FreeAp  docs & source code  a free
Applicative
for any type of kindType > Type
. Here's the related paper, which will likely make more sense once we explain how theFree
monad works.  Free (the original version)  a free
Monad
for anyFunctor
. Its implementation suffers from big performance problems when run.  Free (reflection without remorse)  docs & source code  a free
Monad
for anyFunctor
. Its implementation removes the performance penalties of the original version and includes all of the optimizations discovered by Oleg Kiselyov (as stated by someone in PureScript's chatroom).
At this time, Coyoneda
and FreeAp
will not be discussed in this folder. Rather, the upcoming files will focus entirely on the Free
monad.
The Original Free Monad
Rather than explaining how one can eventually reason their way through defining what the type is for the original Free
monad (a bottomup approach), we'll simply show its definition, its instances, and demonstrate why it has to work that way (a topdown approach).
data Free f a
= Pure a
 Impure (f (Free f a))
Let's say that Identity
is our f
/Functor
type. What does a concrete value of the Free
data type look like?
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure a
))
))
))
In other words, Free
is just a treelike data structure of nested Identity
values (the branches in our tree) that eventually wrap a final value (the leaf in our tree). In our current example, the tree is unbalanced, so that it appears more like a linkedlist than a tree:
{ Impure ( } Identity (
{ Impure ( } Identity (
{ Impure ( } Identity (
{ Pure } a
{ ) } )
{ ) } )
{ ) } )
The only difference is that Identity
itself is wrapped in another type. So how do we change a value that is wrapped in a boxlike type? We use Functor
's map
, of course! We'll use map
in most of Free
's instances for the needed type classes:
 easiest one!
instance Applicative (Free f) where
pure a = Pure a
 a <#> f == mapFlipped a f == map f a
instance (Functor f) => Functor (Free f) where
map f (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
map f (Impure f_of_Free) =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `map` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > map f pure_A
 which applies the function to the `a`
 and then rewraps the `Impure` values
))
Let's see map
in action via a graph reduction:
 Start!
map f (
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure 5
))
))
)
 Recursively apply `map` until we get a `Pure` value
 1.
(
Impure ( map f Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure 5
))
))
)
 2.
(
Impure ( Identity (
map f Impure ( Identity (
Pure 5
))
))
)
 3.
(
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( map f Identity (
Pure 5
))
))
)
 4.
(
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
map f (Pure 5)
))
))
)
 Now apply the function to pure's value
(
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure (f 5)
))
))
)
 End definition
map f (
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure a
))
))
)
==
Impure ( Identity (
Impure ( Identity (
Pure (f a)
))
))
Let's look at the Apply
instance now:
instance (Functor f) => Apply (Free f) where
apply (Pure f) (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
apply (Impure f_of_Free_F) pure_A =
Impure (f_of_Free_F <#> (
 recursively call `apply` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_F > apply pure_F pure_A
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
apply pure_F (Impure f_of_Free) =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `apply` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > apply pure_F pure_A
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
Let's see apply
in action via a graph reduction:
 Reminder: function arg == arg # function
 Start
 "Left" Impure "Right" Impure
apply (Impure (Identity (Pure f))) (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))
 Use `map` to recursively call `apply` on the left Impure until we get the
 Pure value
Impure ((Identity (Pure f)) <#> (\pure_F > apply pure_F (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))))
Impure (Identity ((Pure f) # (\pure_F > apply pure_F (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))))
 apply `Pure f` to the function
Impure (Identity ( (\(Pure f) > apply (Pure f) (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))))
Impure (Identity ( apply (Pure f) (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))))
 Remove the extra whitespace
Impure (Identity (apply (Pure f) (Impure (Identity (Pure a)))))
 Now use `map` to recursiveely call `apply` on the right Impure until we get
 Pure value
Impure (Identity (Impure ((Identity (Pure a) <#> (\pure_A > apply (Pure f) pure_A))))
Impure (Identity (Impure (Identity ((Pure a) # (\pure_A > apply (Pure f) pure_A))))
 apply `Pure a` to the function
Impure (Identity (Impure (Identity ( (\(Pure a) > apply (Pure f) (Pure a))))))
Impure (Identity (Impure (Identity ( apply (Pure f) (Pure a) ))))
 Remove thee extra whitespace
Impure (Identity (Impure (Identity (apply (Pure f) (Pure a)))))
 Look up the instance
 apply (Pure f) (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
 and replace the LHS with the RHS
Impure (Identity (Impure (Identity (Pure (f a)))))
Now let's define Bind
, again using the map
recursively:
instance (Functor f) => Bind (Free f) where
bind (Pure a) f = f a
bind (Impure f_of_Free) f =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `bind` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > bind pure_A f
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
Let's see bind
in action via a graph reduction:
 Start!
bind (Impure ( Identity (Pure a))) f
 Recursively call `bind` via `map` until reach a `Pure` value:
bind (Impure ( Identity (Pure a))) f
Impure ((Identity (Pure a)) <#> (\pure_a > bind pure_a f) )
Impure ( Identity ((Pure a) # (\pure_a > bind pure_a f)))
 Apply `Pure a` to the function
Impure ( Identity ( ( bind (Pure a) f)))
Impure ( Identity ( bind (Pure a) f))
 remove extra white space
Impure ( Identity (bind (Pure a) f))
 Look up the instance
 bind (Pure a) f = f a
 and replace the LHS with the RHS
Impure ( Identity (Pure (f a)))
Definition of Free Monad
Putting it all together, we get this:
data Free f a
= Pure a
 Impure (f (Free f a))
instance Applicative (Free f) where
pure a = Pure a
instance (Functor f) => Functor (Free f) where
map f (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
map f (Impure f_of_Free) =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `map` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > map f pure_A
 which applies the function to the a
 and then rewraps the `Impure` values
))
instance (Functor f) => Apply (Free f) where
apply (Pure f) (Pure a) = Pure (f a)
apply (Impure f_of_Free_F) pure_A =
Impure (f_of_Free_F <#> (
 recursively call `apply` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_F > apply pure_F pure_A
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
apply pure_F (Impure f_of_Free) =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `apply` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > apply pure_F pure_A
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
instance (Functor f) => Bind (Free f) where
bind (Pure a) f = f a
bind (Impure f_of_Free) f =
Impure (f_of_Free <#> (
 recursively call `bind` on nested `Impure` values
 until we get a `Pure` value of Free
\pure_A > bind pure_A f
 apply the function and then rewrap `Impure` values
))
The next file will explain why this implementation has performance problems.
The Remorseless Free Monad
What follows is a quick summary of the Reflection without Remorse paper. This summary:
 explains what's at the heart of the original
Free
's performance problem  explains using a very highlevel "read the paper if you want to understand the 'type magic'" explanation for how the "reflection without remorse" version of
Free
fixes that performance problem.
Similar Shapes: The Free Monoid and the Free Monad
Surpisingly, these two "free" types bear a similar resemblence:
data List a = Nil  Cons a (List a )
data Free f a = Pure a  Impure (f (Free f a))
A list is just an unbalanced tree. Thus, Free
is essentially the same as List
, except that it stores a higherkinded type (kind Type > Type
) rather than a concrete type (kind Type
)
This similarity will be used to explain why Free
has performance problems.
The Direction Matters
Let's talk about Semigroup
:
class Semigroup a where
append :: a > a > a
infix 4 append as <>
instance Semigroup Int where
append i1 i2 = i1 + i2
Semigroup
requires its implementation to adhere to the law of association, meaning that, when append
is used on the output of a previous append
and some other value, the location of the parenthenses don't matter:
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
 no association: Treelike structure
 Start
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
 Add parentheesis, starting from the 'leaves'
(1 <> 2) <> (3 <> 4) <> (5 <> 6) <> (7 <> 8)
((1 <> 2) <> (3 <> 4)) <> ((5 <> 6) <> (7 <> 8))
 Left association: Listlike structure
 Start
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
 Add parenthesis, starting from the left
(1 <> 2) <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
(((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4) <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
((((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4) <> 5) <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
(((((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4) <> 5) <> 6) <> 7 <> 8
((((((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4) <> 5) <> 6) <> 7) <> 8
 Finish:
((((((1 <> 2) <> 3) <> 4) <> 5) <> 6) <> 7) <> 8
 Right association: Listlike structure
 Start
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> 7 <> 8
 add parenthesis, starting from the right
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> 6 <> (7 <> 8)
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> 5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8))
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> 4 <> (5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8)))
1 <> 2 <> 3 <> (4 <> (5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8))))
1 <> 2 <> (3 <> (4 <> (5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8)))))
1 <> (2 <> (3 <> (4 <> (5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8))))))
 Finish:
1 <> (2 <> (3 <> (4 <> (5 <> (6 <> (7 <> 8))))))
We can see that the output of adding up all these integers, regardless of where we put the parenthesis, will still be the same output value (that's the law of associativity).
However, functions that are "associative" sometimes take longer to output that value depending on which "direction" it goes. As an example, consider the Semigroup
instance for List
:
data List a
= Nil
 Cons a (List a)
infix 4 Cons as :
 Nil == []
 1 : Nil == [1]
 1 : 2 : 3 : Nil == [1, 2, 3]
 Right associative: Start
(1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil) <> (3 : Nil) <> (4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)  0
(1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil) <> (3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))  0
(1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil) <> ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)))  0
(1 : Nil) <> ((2 : Nil) <> ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  0
append (1 : Nil) ((2 : Nil) <> ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  1
1 : (append Nil ((2 : Nil) <> ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)))))  2
1 : ((2 : Nil) <> ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  3
1 : (append (2 : Nil) ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  4
1 : (2 : (append Nil ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  5
1 : (2 : ((3 : Nil) <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil))))  6
1 : (2 : (3 : (append Nil <> ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)))))  7
1 : (2 : (3 : ((4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)))))  8
1 : (2 : (3 : (4 : (append Nil (5 : Nil)))))  9
1 : (2 : (3 : (4 : (5 : Nil))))  10
1 : (2 : (3 : (4 : 5 : Nil)))  11
1 : (2 : (3 : 4 : 5 : Nil))  12
1 : (2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : Nil)  13
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : Nil  14
 Left associative: Start
 List1 List2 List3 List4 List5
(1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil) <> (3 : Nil) <> (4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)  0
((1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil)) <> (3 : Nil) <> (4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)  0
(((1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil)) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)  0
((((1 : Nil) <> (2 : Nil)) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  0
(((append (1 : Nil) (2 : Nil)) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  1
(((1 : (append Nil (2 : Nil))) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  2
(((1 : (2 : Nil)) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  3
(((1 : 2 : Nil ) <> (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  3
 At this point, we will need to iterate
 through the List1 all over again!
((append (1 : 2 : Nil) (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  4
((1 : (append (2 : Nil) (3 : Nil))) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  5
((1 : 2 : (append Nil (3 : Nil))) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  6
((1 : 2 : (3 : Nil)) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  7
((1 : 2 : 3 : Nil) <> (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  7
 At this point, we will need to iterate
 through the List1 AND List2 all over again!
(append (1 : 2 : 3 : Nil) (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  8
(1 : (append (2 : 3 : Nil) (4 : Nil))) <> (5 : Nil)  9
(1 : 2 : (append (3 : Nil) (4 : Nil))) <> (5 : Nil)  10
(1 : 2 : 3 : (append Nil (4 : Nil))) <> (5 : Nil)  11
(1 : 2 : 3 : (4 : Nil)) <> (5 : Nil)  12
(1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : Nil) <> (5 : Nil)  12
 At this point, we will need to iterate
 through the List1 AND List2 AND List3 all over again!
append (1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : Nil) (5 : Nil)  13
1 : (append (2 : 3 : 4 : Nil) (5 : Nil))  14
1 : 2 : (append (3 : 4 : Nil) (5 : Nil))  15
1 : 2 : 3 : (append (4 : Nil) (5 : Nil))  16
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : (append Nil (5 : Nil))  17
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : (5 : Nil)  18
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : Nil  18
The law of associativity guarantees that the output of a non/left/rightassociative function will always be the same. However, the above code demonstrates that one direction of function application (right association) can be faster than another (left association).
So, let's think about why this occured. Due to the way the type is defined, List
must use recursion to get to its tail Nil
before it can replace that tail, Nil
, with the list to which it is being appended. Since List
and Free
are structured similarly, then Free
will also suffer the same performance costs if it uses a leftassociative function to reach its tail, Pure
. So, which function does Free
use that acts just like append
? The bind
function. Every bind
/>>=
call will iterate through the entire Free
structure, apply the function to its Pure a
value and then rewrap everything in an Impure
value:
 Thus, this code...
freeMonad >>= f >>= g >>= h >>= ...
 is synonymous with the runtime performance hit as this code...
(((list <> f) <> g) <> h) <> ...
When we call freeMonad >>= f
, we iterate through freeMonad
's entire structure. When we take that output and bind
/>>=
it to g
, we iterate through freeMonad
's entire structure plus any new nesting values that f
added to it. When we take that output and bind
/>>=
it to h
, the total cost is freeMonad + f's additional structure + g's additional structure
. As a result, Free
's performance suffers because of its recursive nature.
Is recursion by itself bad? No, recursion can be quite helpful; it's not the problem. Rather, the problem with List
's leftassociative <>
function is the slow recursivetime access to List
's tail. Since List
represents a sequence of values, we can fix the append
problem by using a different sequencelike data structure that grants fast constanttime access to its tail. Similarly, to fix the problem with Free
, we should define it differently, so that the "data structure" to which it is similar also has constanttime tail access (i.e. constant time access to its Pure
value).
This sounds easy until you remember what bind
's type signature allows:
bind :: forall a b. m a > (a > m b) > m b
.
In other words, bind
must work "for all a
and b
types" where these types can differ inbetween multiple bind
calls.
Fortunately, the paper's authors figured out how to do this using a FingerTree
(data structure with constant time head and tail access) that stores a special type that represents a bind
's type signature and which can be composed just like multiple bind
functions. This "type magic" won't be explained here; you'll need to read the paper (see Section 4 and 5) on your own to understand it fully.
To quote from their documentation, Purescript's Free
monad is "the Free monad implemented in the spirit of [that] paper."
Now that we understand what the Free
monad is, let's see why it's useful.
The Expression Problem
Brief Summary
The Expression Problem can be summarized into three ideas:
The goal is to define a data type by cases, where
 one can add new cases to the data type and
 (one can add) new functions over the data type,
 without recompiling existing code, and
 while retaining static type safety.
Preexisting compiled function  Function is added  

Preexisting compiled data type  All languages  FP: Add a function in a new file OO: ??? 
Data type is added  FP: ??? OO: Add a subclass in a new file  Problem's Solution^^ 
^^ This cannot be defined until the corresponding FP/OO issue (marked as ???
) is resolved
A Solution to the Expression Problem
The paper, Data Types à la carte, synthesized a number of knownatthetimeofwriting ideas into a solution to the Expression problem by figuring out a way to compose complicated data types. When they applied their findings to the Free
monad, they found that they could "run" multiple monads inside of one monad.
This folder is a summmary and commentary on the paper linked above. It is meant to be read alongside of or after you read the paper. While you, the reader, could just read the paper and ignore the rest of this folder's contents, there are some advantages to reading through this folder's contents alongside of the paper:
 Sometimes, the above paper will state that something is true, but not show why. This folder will explore that more and show why it's true.
 Sometimes, the paper may use unfamiliar terminology or use symbolic data types. This folder will explain the terminology and use alphabetical names to refer to some data types.
 The last file in this folder (i.e.
Embedded Compilers.md
) explains one of the key features one obtains by using theFree
monad approach
Reading the Paper and This Folder SidebySide
Rather than follow the paper exactly, this folder will define and solve a simpler version of the Expression Problem to demonstrate the basic idea of the solution. With that foundation, the paper's real problem will be explored and solved.
In addition, the paper explains how to write a show
function that pretty prints the mathetmatical expression. This folder's contents will not overview that part of the paper. The full reasons will be explained when we get to that part.
Contents of The Paper
The paper above has 8 sections:
 Introduction (what is the expression problem and an example of it?)
 Fixing the Expression Problem (how do we compose data types?)
 Evaluation (how do we evaluate composed data types?)
 Automating Injections (how do we reduce boilerplate when working with composed data types?)
 Examples (Provide a full example of a solution to our problem)
 Monads for Free (Why is this relevant to Free monads?)
 Applications (Using this approach to define extensible effects by composing Free monads)
 Discussion
This folder has 8 files:
 Seeing and Solving a Simple Problem
 Reducing boilerplate via Either
 Seeing and Solving a Harder Problem
 Writing the Evaluate Function
 Writing the Show function (optional)
 From Expression to Free
 Defining Modular Monads
 Embedded Compilers
Correspondance Table
This Folder  General Idea  Corresponding Paper section  General idea 

1 (File)  Prep work: Defining and solving a simple version of the problem by composing data types  Sections 1/2/3/5 (ish)  Laying a foundation 
2 (File)  Prep work: Abstract data type composition via Either  Section 4 (ish)  Laying a foundation 
3 (File)  Showing why the paper's problem is hard to solve, but still solvable; reveal Coproduct  Sections 1/2/4/5 (ish)   
4 (File)    Sections 3/5  Writing the evaluate function 
5 (File)  Optional reading  Sections 3/5  Writing the show function 
6 (Folder)  Show that Expression is really Free  Section 6   
7 (File)  Using 'languages' to model effects  Section 6  Simulating the State monad 
8 File  Defining abstract syntax trees via Free  Sections 6/7  Its relevance to and application for Free monads 
Seeing and Solving the Problem in FP Code
The goal is to define a data type by cases, where
 one can add new cases to the data type and
 (one can add) new functions over the data type,
 without recompiling existing code, and
 while retaining static type safety.
A Very Simple Example of The Problem
Given this code
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
showFruit :: Fruit > String
showFruit Apple = "apple"
showFruit Banana = "banana"
We can easily add a new function to our code without needing to recompile our existing code
 in another file...
intFruit :: Fruit > Int
intFruit Apple = 0
intFruit Banana = 1
However, if we want to add another data constructor to Fruit
, we can only do so by updating Fruit
to include Orange
and then updating all of our functions to include Orange
as well:
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
 Orange
showFruit :: Fruit > String
showFruit Apple = "apple"
showFruit Banana = "banana"
showFruit Orange = "orange"
Since Fruit
has already been compiled, we will need to recompile our code with the updated version of Fruit
. Moreover, if we do not update showFruit
/intFruit
, then we no longer have an exhaustive pattern match. Thus, these functions are no longer pure but are now partial functions.
The Solution
The solution, then, is to be able to define data types in such a way that they "compose". The best way to compose data types is to group two types into one type via a type wrapper:
 original file
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
 new file
data Fruit2
= Orange
data FruitGrouper =  ???
How should FruitGrouper
be defined? A value of FruitGrouper
should only be one of 3 values:
 FruitGrouper Apple
 FruitGrouper Banana
 FruitGrouper Orange
We can define it using this approach:
data FruitGrouper
= Fruit_ Fruit
 Fruit2_ Fruit2
This approach will enable showFruit
and intFruit
to continue to work as expected. If we wanted to define a new function that uses both, we would pass in FruitGrouper
instead:
 original file. This cannot change once written!
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
showFruit :: Fruit > String
showFruit Apple = "apple"
showFruit Banana = "banana"
 new file
data Fruit2
= Orange
data FruitGrouper
= Fruit_ Fruit
 Fruit2_ Fruit2
showAllFruit :: FruitGrouper > String
showAllFruit (Fruit_ appleOrBanana) = showFruit appleOrBanana
showAllFruit (Fruit2_ Orange) = "orange"
Great! We have now seen how to solve a very simple version of this problem. Now, let's refine this approach a bit as preparation for a future harder problem.
Reducing Boilerplate
There are two problems with our current approach that we want to raise.
First, if we want to add another data constructor Cherry
, we now need to nest that type even further using another type wrapper:
 original file. This cannot change once written!
data Fruit
= Apple
 Banana
showFruit :: Fruit > String
showFruit Apple = "apple"
showFruit Banana = "banana"
 File 2. This cannot change once written!
intFruit :: Fruit > Int
intFruit Apple = 0
intFruit Banana = 1
data Fruit2
= Orange
data FruitGrouper
= Fruit_ Fruit
 Fruit2_ Fruit2
showAllFruit :: FruitGrouper > String
showAllFruit (Fruit_ appleOrBanana) = showFruit appleOrBanana
showAllFruit (Fruit2_ Orange) = "orange"
 File 3.
data Fruit3 = Cherry
data FruitGrouper2
= FruitGrouper_ FruitGrouper
 Fruit3_ Fruit3
showMoreFruit :: FruitGrouper2 > String
showMoreFruit (FruitGrouper_ a) = showAllFruit a
showMoreFruit (Fruit3_ Cherry) = "cherry"
We see that we keep nesting types inside more type wrappers. If we were to abstract this away into a more general type, we basically have nested Either
s:
data Either a b
= Left a
 Right b
Either Fruit (Either Fruit2 Fruit3)
Anytime we want to add a new data constructor, we need to nest it in another Either
:
Either first (Either second (Either third (Either fourth ... (Either _ last))))
If we were to visualize this data structure, it looks like this:
Either Either
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
first Either Left first Right
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
second Either Left second Right
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
third Either Left third Right
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
fourth last Left fourth Right last
Thus, to access last
, we need to call Right (Right (Right (Right last)))
Second, using a value that is wrapped in a nested data structure leads to boilerplate.
Here's an example of putting a value of one of the nested types into the data structure. One needs to write a variant for each type position in our data structure:
putInsideOf :: forall first second third fourth last
. last
> Either first (Either second (Either third (Either fourth last)))
putInsideOf last = Right (Right (Right (Right last)))
If we want to extract a value of a type that is in our nested Either
value, we need to return Maybe TheType
because the value may be of a different type in the nested Either
value. Using Maybe
makes our code pure:
extractFrom :: forall first second third fourth last
. Either first (Either second (Either third (Either fourth last)))
> Maybe Result
extractFrom (Right (Right (Right (Right last)))) = Just last
extractFrom _ = Nothing
Once again, we need to write a variant of this function that works for every type position (e.g. first
, second
, and third
) in our data structure.
In short, this boilerplate gets tedious. However, boilerplate usually implies a pattern we can use. Here's two ways we could make this easier:
 Rather than using a nested
Either
type, why not define a type for this specific purpose?  Rather than using
extractFrom
andputInsideOf
, why not define a type class with two functions for this specific purpose?
Defining NestedEither
Looking at our example of a nested Either
below, what is the common structure?
Either first ( Either second ( Either third last))
Left first  Right (Left second  Right (Left third  Right last))
Left first  Right (NestedEither second theRemainintTypes )
So we come up with this idea, but it doesn't work...
data NestedEither a b
= Left a
 Right (NestedEither b c)
...because we enter an infinte loop:
 To define
c
in theRight
value'sNestedEither b c
argument, we need the type declaraction,data NestedEither a b
to include the third type,c
. Thus, we go to step 2.  We update the type to
data NestedEither a b c
. However, now theNestedEither b c
inRight
value has only two types, not three. Thus, it no longer adheres to its own declaration (i.e.NestedEither b c ?
vsNestedEither a b c
). To add the type, we need it to be different than the others to enable the recursive idea of a nestedEither
, so we'll call itd
. Thus, we return to step 1 exceptc
is nowd
in that example.
Still, we can clean up the verbosity/readability of nested Either
s by creating an infix notation for it:
infixr 6 type Either as \/
Either Int String == Int \/ String
 As an example, the first line below reduces to the last line below
first \/ second \/ third \/ fourth \/ last  first
first \/ second \/ third \/ (fourth \/ last)
first \/ second \/ (third \/ (fourth \/ last))
first \/ (second \/ (third \/ (fourth \/ last)))  last
Defining InjectProject
When we have to write the same function again and again for different types in FP languages, we convert it into a type class (e.g. Semigroup
, Monoid
, Functor
, etc.). Likewise, when we look at our code below...
putInsideOf :: forall first second third fourth last
. last
> Either first (Either second (Either third (Either fourth last)))
putInsideOf last = Right (Right (Right (Right last)))
... we want putInsideOf
to mean "if I have a data structure with nested types, take one of those types values and put it into that data structure." In other words, we want to inject
some value into a data structure:
inject :: forall theType theNestedEitherType
. theType
> theNestedEitherType
When we look at the other code we had...
extractFrom :: forall first second third fourth last
. Either first (Either second (Either third (Either fourth last)))
> Maybe last
extractFrom (Right (Right (Right (Right last)))) = Just (f last)
extractFrom _ _ = Nothing
... we want extractFrom
to mean "If I have a data structure with nested types, I want to extract the value of a specific type out of that structure via Just
or get Nothing
if the value does not exist." In other words, we want to project
some type's value from the data structure into the world:
project :: forall nestedType theType
. nestedType
> Maybe theType
Turning this idea into a type class, we get this:
class InjectAndProject someType nestedType where
inject :: someType > nestedType
project :: nestedType > Maybe someType
PurescriptEither
Indeed, the ideas we've proposed have already been defined by purescripteither
:
\/
as a type alias forEither
 The Inject type class and its implementation via "instance chains" that works for nested
Either
types.
The library provides convenience functions and types for nested Either
s, but only up to 10 total types:
 Convenience functions for dealing with injection and projection
 Convenience functions for running code that handles every possible type in the nested Either:
 Convenience types for writing them in a function's type signature without the
\/
syntax
Seeing and Solving a Harder Example
Failing to Solve a Harder Version
Let's try using our Either
based solution to solve a harder problem. We'll solve the same problem the paper to which we referred beforehand solved.
They want to define a program that can evaluate an expression that consists of adding and multiplying integers. However, they want to define this program in such a way that it also solves the Expression Problem.
To start, we'll define the Value
type that wraps an Int
and the Addition
type in the "file 1". An Addition
should work in all of these cases:
 Adds two ints
 Adds an int and another add expression
 Adds two add expressions.
To achieve this result, we'll define our type like so:
data Expression
= Value Int
 Add Expression Expression
evaluate :: Expression > Int
evaluate (Value i) = i
evaluate (Add x y) = (evaluate x) + (evaluate y)
show2 :: Expression > String
show2 (Value i) = show i
show2 (Add x y) = "(" <> show x <> " + " <> show y <> ")"
Now, if we want to add Multiply
in "file 2" without changing or recompiling "file 1", how does that fare? If we define our data type for Multiply
like this...
data Multiply = Multiply Expression Expression
... then Multiply
will work similarly to Add
:
 Multiplies 2 Int values
 Multiply an int value and an add expression
 Multiply two add expressions
The problem with our above definition is that it does not account for two other cases that should work:
 Multiply two multiply expressions
 Add two multiply expresions
Exploring Our Options
Let's model these types differently by separating them all into their own types that we can later compose. We won't include Multiply
yet:
data Value = Value Int
data Add = Add Expression Expression
type Expression = Value \/ Add
value :: Int > Expression
value i = inj (Value i)
add :: Expression > Expression > Expression
add x y = inj (Add x y)
show2 :: Expression > String
show2 (Left (Value i)) = show i
show2 (Right (Add x y)) = "(" <> show2 x <> " + " <> show2 y <> ")"
evaluate :: Expression > Int
evaluate (Left (Value i)) = i
evaluate (Right (Add x y)) = (evaluate x) + (evaluate y)
To achieve the capability to add and multiply Multiply
expressions, what would we need to do, even if it means breaking the constraints of the Expression Problem?
 File 1
data Value = Value Int
data Add = Add Expression Expression
 File 2
data Multiply = Multiply Expression Expression
 The problem: this is the final type we need
type Expression = Value \/ Add \/ Multiply
There are two places where we could define Expression
, each with its own problems:
 If we define it in File 1, then its definition cannot include the
Multiply
field because File 1 doesn't know about that type.  If we define it in File 2, then File 1 will not compile because the compiler does not know what the type,
Expression
, is.
Hmm... The Expression Problem is more nuanced than first thought. Still, the above refactoring helps shed light on what needs to be done. Let's look back at Add
:
data Add = Add Expression Expression
Add
must add 2 Expressions. However, we've hardcoded what Expression
means. Since the location declaration of Expression
causes a problem, we must turn this hardcoded type into a generic type to enable us to define it at a later time. The same goes for Multiply
:
data Add expression = Add expression expression
 or a less verbose version
data Multiply e = Multiply e e
We also know from our previous simpler problem that we will need to eventually compose our data types together into a big Expression
type. In other words, we should get something like this:
 L RL RR
 Either Value (Either Add Multiply)
Right ( Left ( Add (
(Left (Value 1))
(Right ( Right ( Multiply
(Left (Value 1))
(Left (Value 1))
))
))
To summarize, we need to
 define the
expression
type inAdd
/Multiply
generically so we can define it at a later time as a way (avoids the location problem)  define an
Expression
type that composes data types together but somehow prevents them from knowing about one another. We need something like a "buffer zone" but for our types.
Solving the Problem
We'll show you how the paper solved this, starting with the type's value and then showing the actual type declaration/definition:
 Value of our Expression type with Placeholder commented out
{ Placeholder ( } Right ( Left ( Add (
{ (Placeholder } ( Left (Value 1))  )
{ (Placeholder } ( Right ( Right ( Multiply
{ (Placeholder } (Left (Value 1))  )
{ (Placeholder } (Left (Value 1))  )
)))  )
)))  )
 A full value
Placeholder ( Right ( Left ( Add (
(Placeholder ( Left (Value 1)))
(Placeholder ( Right ( Right ( Multiply
(Placeholder (Left (Value 1)))
(Placeholder (Left (Value 1)))
))))
))))
 Define a special "placeholder" type that hides the next
 `expression` type from the actual data type
 `f` is a higherkinded type
data Expression f = Placeholder (f (Expression f))
 Make the types all higherkinded by one
data Add e = Add e e
data Multiply e = Multiply e e
 `e` not used here
 but needed to make the next type work
data Value e = Value Int
{
The following is pseudocode. I don't konw whether it compiles.
Use Either to compose these higherkinded types:
Either (Value e) (Either (Add e) (Multiply e))
type AMV e = (Value e) \/ (Add e) \/ (Multiply e)
newtype AMV_Expression = AMV_Expression (Expression AMV)
Revealing Coproduct
Above, we wrote this:
Either (Value e) (Either (Add e) (Multiply e))
(Value e) \/ (Add e) \/ (Multiply e)
However, this is just a more verbose form of Coproduct
:
newtype Coproduct f g a = Coproduct (Either (f a) (g a))
Indeed, just as there was a library for nested Either
s via purescripteither
, there is also a library for nested Coproduct
s: purescriptfunctors
, which also includes convenience functions and types for dealing with nested versions of Coproduct
as well as inject values into and project values out of it.
To help us understand how to read and write Coproduct
, let's compare the Coproduct
version to its equivalent Either
version:
 not nested
Either (Value e) (Add e)
Coproduct Value Add e
 nested
(Value e) \/ (Add e) \/ (Multiply e)
Either (Value e) (Either (Add e) (Multiply e))
Coproduct Value (Coproduct Add Multiply) e
 nested using convenience types from both libraries
Either3 (Value e) (Add e) (Multiply e)
Coproduct3 Value Add Multiply e
Writing the Evaluate Function
Since we'll be doing graph reductions later that will get somewhat complicated, we will rename Placeholder
to In
to make it easier to read. In
is the same name used in the paper. This should make reading this "commentary" alongside of the paper easier.
data Expression f = In (f (Expression f))
 A full value
In ( Right ( Left ( Add (
(In ( Left (Value 1)))
(In ( Right ( Right ( Multiply
(In (Left (Value 1)))
(In (Left (Value 1)))
))))
))))
The Types' Functor Instances
Due to how Value
, Add
, and Multiply
are now defined, they are also Functor
s. Add
and Multiply
implement map
as one would expect:
map :: (e > z) > Add e > Add z
map f (Add e1 e2) = Add (f e1) (f e2)
map :: (e > z) > Multiply e > Multiply z
map f (Multiply e1 e2) = Multiply (f e1) (f e2)
However, Value
implements it differently in an important way. Since Value
's generic type, e
, is never used in its value and since the Value
constructor can only wrap an Int
type, one cannot really "map" a Value
(i.e. change the inner Int
type) to anything else. Rather, they can only change Value
's e
type:
data Value e = ValueConstructor Int
map :: (e > z) > Value e > Value z
map _ (ValueConstructor x) = ValueConstructor x
 ((ValueConstructor x) :: Value e) ((ValueConstructor x) :: Value z)
 We have to extract the `x` and rewrap it in a different
 `Value z` type.
Thus, Value
is a noop Functor
: using map
on it just returns the same value.
An Either
that wraps higherkinded types implements Functor
as we would expect:
instance (Functor f, Functor g) => Functor (Either (f e) (g e)) where
map func (Left f) = Left (map func f)
map func (Right g) = Right (map func g)
instance (Functor f, Functor g) => Functor Coproduct f g e where
map func (Coproduct either) = Coproduct (map func either)
A Simple Evaluation
We will soon see why it matters that these types are Functor
s.
Let's write a function that can evaluate the simplest version of our nested data structure. We'll exclude Add
and Multiply
and only focus on Value
. To simulate the Left
value in Either (Value e) (SomethingElse e)
, we'll use BoxF
:
data BoxF f a = BoxF (f a)
instance Functor f => Functor (Box f) where
map function (BoxF f_of_a) = Box (map function f_of_a)
 the `e` type in `Value e` can be anything.
valueExample :: forall e. Expression (BoxF (Value e))
valueExample = In (BoxF (Value 2))
What do we need to do to take valueExample
and evaluate it to 2
? We need a way to remove the intermediary values: In
, BoxF
, and Value
. There are two ways this could be done:
 We implement 3 different functions that all unwrap the wrapper type.
 We implement a type class that specifies an 'unwrap' function that each implements.
We'll take the second approach because it adheres to the idea of adding more types later on:
class (Functor f) <= Evaluate f where
evaluate :: forall a. f a > Int
instance Evaluate Value where
evaluate (Value x) = x
instance Evaluate f => Evaluate (BoxF f) where
evaluate (Boxf f) = evaluate f
instance Evaluate f => Evaluate (Expression f) where
evaluate (In f) = evaluate f
 then we could write:
evaluate valueExample
Including Add
again
This solution works until we make our code more complicatd by composing Add
with Value
via Either
again.
addExample :: Expression (Coproduct Value Add e)
addExample =
In (Right (Add  Coproduct's wrapper value
(In (Left (Value 2)))  is excluded for simplicity
(In (Left (Value 4)))  since it's just an `Either`
))
Returning to the Eval
type class, how would we implement an instance for Add
?
class (Functor f) <= Evaluate f where
evaluate :: forall a. f a > Int
instance Evaluate Add where
evaluate (Add x y) =  ???
The difficulty above lies in one problem: what is x
and y
for Add
? We might immediately presume that they are another Expression
. However, the e
in Add e
could be anything. Moreover, the Eval
type class does not force that e
to be anything in particular. Here's the dilemma we run into now:
 If we use a type class constraint to make
a
be anEvaluate
, so that we could implementAdd
's Evaluate instance as(eval x) + (eval y)
, then that will forceValue
'se
type to also satisfy that constraint. How then would we implement an instance forValue
?  If we don't constrain the
a
to be anEvaluate
, we cannot evaluateaddExample
.
So, let's look at what we need to do to evaluate Add
. We need to
 remove the
In
values at every other point:In (f (In (f (In (Value)))))
 remove the intermediary
Left
/Right
values  convert
Value x
tox
 convert
Add x y
tox + y
Starting with an easier problem, we could guarantee that all In
values are removed by calling an unwrapping function, removeIn
, followed by a map
call:
removeIn :: Expression f > f
removeIn (In f) = map removeIn f
To see why this works, we'll run this function on addExample
:
 Start!
removeIn (
In (Right (Add
(In (Left (Value 2)))
(In (Left (Value 4)))
))
)
 call `removeIn` by replacing LHS with RHS
map removeIn (Right (Add
(In (Left (Value 2)))
(In (Left (Value 4)))
))
 call map on Right, which delegates function to Add
Right $ map removeIn (Add
(In (Left (Value 2)))
(In (Left (Value 4)))
)
 call map on Add, which delegates function to both subexpressions
Right $ Add
(removeIn (In (Left (Value 2))))
(removeIn (In (Left (Value 4))))
 call removeIn on both values
Right $ Add
(map removeIn (Left (Value 2)))
(map removeIn (Left (Value 4)))
 call map on both Left values
Right $ Add
(Left $ map removeIn (Value 2))
(Left $ map removeIn (Value 4))
 call map on both `Value` values, which does nothing...
Right $ Add
(Left $ (Value 2))
(Left $ (Value 4))
 remove all of the "$"
Right (Add
(Left (Value 2))
(Left (Value 4))
)
This approach effectively removes all In
values. However, we are still left with the same problem above: converting an Add
expression into an Int
value by defining an Evaluate
instance.
However, the reduction of our graph shows something important. What is the type signature for the result of our reduction? We can see it below:
result :: Coproduct Value Add e
result =
Right (Add
(Left (Value 2))
(Left (Value 4))
)
Looking at the Evaluate
type class definition again, we can see that we don't force a
(which corresponds to our e
type in result
) to be anything. However, what if we changed it to Int
? If we do, it solves our dilemma above:
class (Functor f) <= Evaluate f where
evaluate :: f Int > Int
instance Evaluate Value where
evaluate (Value x) = x
instance Evaluate Add where
evaluate :: Add Int > Int
evaluate (Add x y) = x + y
instance (Evaluate f, Evaluate g) => Evaluate (Either f g) where
evaluate (Left f) = evaluate f
evaluate (Right g) = evaluate g
If we call evaluate
on the result of our graph reduction above, what do we get?
 Start!
evaluate (Right (Add
(Left (Value 2))
(Left (Value 4))
))
 replace LHS with RHS
evaluate (Add
(Left (Value 2))
(Left (Value 4))
)
 Compiler error! Expected `Add Int` but got `Add (Either (Value e) (Add e))
The problem with this approach is that the nested Value int
values were not evaluated before we evaluated the Add
. If we could somehow change how our code works, we need something more like this:
 Start!
evaluate (Right (Add
(evaluate (Left (Value 2)))
(evaluate (Left (Value 4)))
))
 Evaluate both Left values
evaluate (Right (Add
(evaluate (Value 2))
(evaluate (Value 4))
))
 Evaluate both Value values
evaluate (Right (Add
(2)
(4)
))
 Since Add is now of type `Add Int`,
 evaluate the Right value
evaluate (Add
(2)
(4)
)
 Now evaluate the `Add Int` value
2 + 4
 Reduce
6
So, how do we use the removeIn
approach to remove the In
values and also evaluate Value int
before evaluating Add
, so that the types are correct by the time it happens? We make just a slight change to removeIn
. It will now take an "unwrapping" function that gets applied to the result of our mapping. To make it adhere to the paper, we'll rename it to "fold" and explain that name later:
fold :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Expression f > a
fold function (In f) = function (map (fold function) f)
How should this function be understood? Rather than explain it using words, we'll demonstrate it using a graph reduction. Then, we'll explain the name:
 Start
fold evaluate addExample
 replace addExample with its definition
fold evaluate (In (Right (Add
(In (Left (Val 2)))
(In (Left (Val 3)))
)))
 replace fold's LHS with RHS
evaluate (map (fold evaluate) (Right (Add
(In (Left (Val 2)))
(In (Left (Val 3)))
)))
 apply map to Right value by delegating it to Add value
evaluate (Right $ map (fold evaluate) (Add
(In (Left (Val 2)))
(In (Left (Val 3)))
))
 apply map to Add value by delegating it to both expressions
evaluate (Right $ Add
(fold evaluate (In (Left (Val 2))))
(fold evaluate (In (Left (Val 3))))
)
 apply fold to `In` value
evaluate (Right $ Add
(evaluate (map (fold evaluate) (Left (Val 2))))
(evaluate (map (fold evaluate) (Left (Val 3))))
)
 apply map to Left value, which delegates to `Value` value
evaluate (Right $ Add
(evaluate (Left $ map (fold evaluate) (Val 2)))
(evaluate (Left $ map (fold evaluate) (Val 3)))
)
 apply map to `Value` value (noop!)
evaluate (Right $ Add
(evaluate (Left $ (Val 2)))
(evaluate (Left $ (Val 3)))
)
 remove the "$"
evaluate (Right $ Add
(evaluate (Left (Val 2)))
(evaluate (Left (Val 3)))
)
 evaluate the Left value
evaluate (Right $ Add
(evaluate (Val 2))
(evaluate (Val 3))
)
 evaluate the Value value
evaluate (Right $ Add
(2)
(3)
)
 put everything on one line again
evaluate (Right $ Add (2) (3))
 remove the $ and extra parenthesis
evaluate (Right (Add 2 3))
 evaluate the Right value
evaluate (Add 2 3)
 evaluate the Add value
2 + 3
 add them up
5
Explaining Terms
There's a term we did not explain but which appears in the paper: algebra
. An Algebra
is merely a special name for a function with a specific type signature: (f a > a)
. It's our evaluate
function.
All Code So Far and Evaluate
I have not checked whether this code works, but it will serve to give you an idea for how it works.
 File 1
data Value e = Value Int
data Add e = Add e e
derive instance Functor Value
derive instance Functor Add
data Expression f = In (f (Expression f))
 where `f` is a composed data type via Coproduct
value :: forall f. Int > Expression f
value i = inj (Value i)
add :: forall f. Expression f > Expression f > Expression f
add x y = inj (Add x y)
class (Functor f) <= Evaluate f where
evaluate :: f Int > Int
instance Evaluate Value where
evaluate (Value x) = x
instance Evaluate Add where
evaluate (Add x y) = x + y
fold :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Expression f > a
fold f (In t) = f (map (fold f) t)
type VA e = Coproduct Value Add e
newtype VA_Expression = VA_Expression (Expression VA)
eval :: forall f. Expression f > Int
eval expression = fold evaluate expression
 call `eval` on this
file1Example :: VA_Expression
file1Example = add (value 5) (value 6)
 File 2
data Multiply e = Multiply e e
derive instance Functor Multiply
multiply :: forall f. Expression f > Expression f > Expression f
multiply x y = inj $ Multiply x y
instance Evaluate Multiply where
evaluate (Multiply x y) = x * y
type VAM e = Coproduct3 Value Add Multiply e
newtype VAM_Expression = VAM_Expression (Expression VAM)
 call `eval` on this
file2Example :: VAM_Expression
file2Example = add (value 5) (multiply (add (value 2) (value 8)) (value 4))
Writing the Show Function
**Thils file is optional reading!**
There are two reasons why:
 I was not able (i.e. smart enough to initially figure this out on my own) to convert this code into a compilable example
 I found that I was able to understand the concept that this folder teaches without ultimately figuring out the below code. For example, the paper only lists the
show
function as another example about how it is easy to add more functions.  The costbeneifits weren't worth it. Why spend time on trying to figure out this problem when I could spend time improving some other part of this repo, especially since this detail does not contribute greatly to one's understanding of this concept.
We still have one more function to define: show2
(which is just show
but which prevents the name conflict from Prelude
). In our original file, show2
was defined like this:
show2 :: Expression > String
show2 (Value i) = show i
show2 (Add x y) = "(" <> show2 x <> " + " <> show2 y <> ")"
Since we changed the function, evaluate
, into a type class, we should follow suit here. Still, we should diverge from Evaluate
in a one way:
 The types for
x
andy
inAdd x y
should not be anInt
. Rather, it should keep the spirit of the originalshow2
function and be other expression types on which we can recursively callshow2
to get a full expression.
Expression
in our original show2
function meant both Value
and Add
. To do the same thing in our new code, where these types are composed via Either
, we would need to change the signature to f (Expression f)
:
class (Functor f) <= Show2 f where {
show2 :: AllExpressionTypes > String }
show2 :: f (Expression f) > String
With that being our expression type, what would values for Value
, Add
, and Multiply
look like that fit that signature?
 Value
(Value 5)
 Value does not use the `In` value here
 so its implementation is trivial
instance Show2 Value where
show2 (Value x) = show x
 Add
Add
(In (Left (Value 5)))
(In (Right (Right (Multiply
(In (Left (Value 9)))
(In (Left (Value 9)))
))))
 Multiply
Multiply
(In (Left (Value 5)))
(In (Right (Left (Add
(In (Left (Value 4)))
(In (Left (Value 2)))
))))
Add
and Multiply
both have an In
value and an Either
value separating the next expression. We can remove the In
value using a function. However, removing the Either
value would be best left to an instance of our own type class that just delegates it to the underlying expression.
removeInAndShow :: Show2 f => Expression f > String
removeInAndShow (In t) = show2 t
instance (Show2 f, Show2 g) => Show2 (Either f g) where
show2 (Left f) = show2 f
show2 (Right g) = show2 g
 Now we can define the values for Add and Multiply
instance Show2 Add where
show2 (Add x y) =
"(" <> removeInAndShow x <> " + " <> removeInAndShow y <> ")"
instance Show2 Multiply where
show2 (Multiply x y) =
"(" <> removeInAndShow x <> " * " <> removeInAndShow y <> ")"
All Code So Far and Show2
Again, I have not checked whether this code works, but it will serve to give you an idea for how it works.
 File 1
data Value e = Value Int
data Add e = Add e e
derive instance Functor Value
derive instance Functor Add
data Expression f = In (f (Expression f))
 where `f` is a composed data type via Coproduct
value :: forall f. Int > Expression f
value i = inj (Value i)
add :: forall f. Expression f > Expression f > Expression f
add x y = inj (Add x y)
class (Functor f) <= Evaluate f where
evaluate :: f Int > Int
instance Evaluate Value where
evaluate (Value x) = x
instance Evaluate Add where
evaluate (Add x y) = x + y
fold :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Expression f > a
fold f (In t) = f (map (fold f) t)
type VA e = Coproduct Value Add e
newtype VA_Expression = VA_Expression (Expression VA)
eval :: forall f. Expression f > Int
eval expression = fold evaluate expression
class (Functor f) <= Show2 f where
show2 :: forall a. f a > String
instance Show2 Value where
show2 (Value x) = show x
removeInAndShow :: Show2 f => Expression f > String
removeInAndShow (In t) = show2 t
instance (Show2 f, Show2 g) => Show2 (Either f g) where
show2 (Left f) = show2 f
show2 (Right g) = show2 g
instance Show2 Add where
show2 (Add x y) =
"(" <> removeInAndShow x <> " + " <> removeInAndShow y <> ")"
 call `eval` and `show2` on this
file1Example :: VA_Expression
file1Example = add (value 5) (value 6)
 File 2
data Multiply e = Multiply e e
derive instance Functor Multiply
multiply :: forall f. Expression f > Expression f > Expression f
multiply x y = inj $ Multiply x y
instance Evaluate Multiply where
evaluate (Multiply x y) = x * y
instance Show2 Multiply where
show2 (Multiply x y) =
"(" <> removeInAndShow x <> " * " <> removeInAndShow y <> ")"
type VAM e = Coproduct3 Value Add Multiply e
newtype VAM_Expression = VAM_Expression (Expression VAM)
 call `eval` and `show2` on this
file2Example :: VAM_Expression
file2Example = add (value 5) (multiply (add (value 2) (value 8)) (value 4))
From Expression
to Free
We've been defining the function, fold
, the same way for a while. However, there's another way to write the function. To help you understand the upcoming code, we'll rewrite it in this new way:
fold :: forall f a. Functor f => (f a > a) > Expression f > a
fold f (In t) = f (map (fold f) t) {
... which can be rewritten using infix notation }
fold f (In t) = f ((fold f) <$> t) {
... which can be rewritten to not pass `f` through recursive calls }
fold f = go where
go (In t) = f (go <$> t) {
... which can be rewritten to use "case _ of" to pattern match }
fold f = go where
go in_t = case in_t of
In t > f (go <$> t)
With that out of the way, let's compare Expression
to Free
. We can see that Expression
is really just a variant of the Free
monad without the Pure
constructor.
newtype Expression f
 no pure here...
= In (f (Expression f ))
newtype Free f a
= Pure a
 Impure (f (Free f a))
How would we rewrite our solution from before to use Free
instead of Expression
? Value
is replaced with Pure
.
To see an example of this for just Value
and Add
(Multiply
is excluded) and to understand its code, refer to the below code and table before viewing ADT8.purs.
 when Value and Add were both `f`
fold f = go where
go in_t = case in_t of
In t > f (go <$> t)
 when Value is simply Pure now
fold f = go where
go free = case free of
Pure a > a  Value
Impure t > f (go <$> t)  Add
xgrommx's code  Our code 

Free ExprF a or Expr  Expression (Coproduct Value ExprF) a 
lit  value 
iter  fold 
iter k go  fold algebra expression 
Left f Right a  AddF ValueF 
A Quick Overview of Some of Purescript's Free
API
Purescript's Free
monad is implemented in the "reflection without remorse" style, which adds complexity to the implementation. Thus, rather than redirecting you there, we'll explain the general idea of what the code is doing.
LiftF
The Free
monad has its own way of injecting a value into it called liftF
. It can be understood like this:
 Before
someValue :: forall a. a > Expression SomeFunctor
someValue a =
In (SomeFunctor a)  or `inj (SomFunctor a)`
 After...
liftF :: a > Free SomeFunctor a
liftF = Impure (SomeFunctor a)
Wrap
LiftF
is useful, but it won't let us compile the examples we will show next because it expects the a
to be any a
. In cases like AddF
/MultiplyF
, sometimes that a
has to be Free AddF
/Free MultiplyF
instead of just the Int
type. In such cases, we can use wrap
:
 Using `liftF`
add :: Int > Int > Free AddF Int
add x y = liftF $ AddF x y
 the above 'add' definition does not allow us to create
 nested adds
 Using `wrap`
add :: Free AddF Int > Free AddF Int > Free AddF Int
add x y = wrap $ AddF x y
Other Functions
foldFree
interprets the Free into some other monad (e.g. Effect
, etc.).
runFree
computes a "pure" program described in Free
(by 'pure,' we meant that Free
only stores the instructions the program would execute, but does not run them).
Compilation Instructions
You can run the upcoming code examples using these instructions:
spago run m Free.AddAndMultiply
01Value.purs
module Free.Value (value, iter) where
import Prelude
import Control.Monad.Free (Free, resume)
import Data.Either (Either(..))
 First, we define the value smart constructor
value :: forall f a. Functor f => a > Free f a
value a = pure a
 Second, we'll define the `iter` function we saw earlier here.
 This will allow us to easily reuse it in the upcoming files
iter :: forall f a. Functor f => (f a > a) > Free f a > a
iter k = go where
go m = case resume m of
Left f > k (go <$> f)
Right a > a
02Add.purs
module Free.Add (AddF(..), add, addAlgebra, showAddExample) where
import Prelude hiding (add)
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)
import Control.Monad.Free (Free, wrap)
import Free.Value (iter, value)

 Code in this section will be reused in upcoming file
data AddF e = AddF e e
derive instance Functor AddF
addAlgebra ::