mirror of
https://github.com/dhil/phd-dissertation
synced 2026-03-13 02:58:26 +00:00
WIP
This commit is contained in:
@@ -351,8 +351,14 @@
|
||||
\newcommand{\fail}{\dec{fail}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\optionalise}{\dec{optionalise}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\bind}{\ensuremath{\gg\!=}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\return}{\dec{return}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\return}{\dec{Return}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\faild}{\dec{withDefault}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\Free}{\dec{Free}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\OpF}{\dec{Op}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\DoF}{\dec{do}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\getF}{\dec{get}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\putF}{\dec{put}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\fmap}{\dec{fmap}}
|
||||
|
||||
% Abstract machine
|
||||
\newcommand{\cek}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle #1 \rangle}}
|
||||
|
||||
10
thesis.bib
10
thesis.bib
@@ -768,6 +768,16 @@
|
||||
year = {1992}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@article{Wadler92b,
|
||||
author = {Philip Wadler},
|
||||
title = {Comprehending Monads},
|
||||
journal = {Math. Struct. Comput. Sci.},
|
||||
volume = {2},
|
||||
number = {4},
|
||||
pages = {461--493},
|
||||
year = {1992}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@inproceedings{JonesW93,
|
||||
author = {Simon L. Peyton Jones and
|
||||
Philip Wadler},
|
||||
|
||||
75
thesis.tex
75
thesis.tex
@@ -512,6 +512,79 @@ monadic operation on the continuation monad~\cite{Wadler92}.
|
||||
\el
|
||||
\]
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Free monad}
|
||||
Just like other monads the free monad satisfies the monad laws,
|
||||
however, unlike other monads the free monad does not perform any
|
||||
computation \emph{per se}. Instead the free monad builds an abstract
|
||||
representation of the computation in form of a computation tree, whose
|
||||
interior nodes correspond to an invocation of some operation on the
|
||||
monad, where each outgoing edge correspond to a possible continuation
|
||||
of the operation; the leaves correspond to return values. The meaning
|
||||
of a free monadic computation is ascribed by a separate function, or
|
||||
interpreter, that traverses the computation tree.
|
||||
|
||||
The shape of computation trees is captured by the following generic
|
||||
type definition.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\Free~F~A \defas [\return:A|\OpF:F\,(\Free~F~A)]
|
||||
\]
|
||||
%
|
||||
The type constructor $\Free$ takes two type arguments. The first
|
||||
parameter $F$ is itself a type constructor of kind
|
||||
$\TypeCat \to \TypeCat$. The second parameter is the usual type of
|
||||
values computed by the monad. The $\Return$ tag creates a leaf of the
|
||||
computation tree, whilst the $\OpF$ tag creates an interior node. In
|
||||
the type signature for $\OpF$ the type variable $F$ is applied to the
|
||||
$\Free$ type. The idea is that $F~K$ computes an enumeration of the
|
||||
signatures of the possible operations on the monad, where $K$ is the
|
||||
type of continuation for each operation. Thus the continuation of an
|
||||
operation is another computation tree node.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{definition} The free monad is a triple
|
||||
$(F^{\TypeCat \to \TypeCat}, \Return, \bind)$ which forms a monad
|
||||
with respect to $F$. In addition an adequate instance of $F$ must
|
||||
supply a map, $\dec{fmap} : (A \to B) \to F~A \to F~B$, over its
|
||||
structure.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\bl
|
||||
T~A \defas \Free~F~A \smallskip\\
|
||||
\Return : A \to T~A\\
|
||||
\Return \defas \lambda x.\return~x\\
|
||||
\bind ~: T~A \to (A \to T~B) \to T~B\\
|
||||
\bind ~\defas \lambda m.\lambda k.\Case\;m\;\{\return~x \mapsto k~x;\OpF~y \mapsto \OpF\,(\fmap\,(\lambda m'. m' \bind k)\,y)\}
|
||||
\el
|
||||
\]
|
||||
%
|
||||
We define an auxiliary function to alleviate some of the
|
||||
boilerplate involved with performing operations on the monad.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\bl
|
||||
\DoF : F~A \to \Free~F~A\\
|
||||
\DoF \defas \lambda op.\OpF\,(\fmap\,(\lambda x.\return~x)\,op)
|
||||
\el
|
||||
\]
|
||||
%
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\bl
|
||||
\dec{FreeState}~S~R \defas [\Get:S \to R|\Put:\Record{S;R}|\Done] \smallskip\\
|
||||
\fmap~f~x \defas \Case\;x\;\{
|
||||
\bl
|
||||
\Get~k \mapsto \Get\,(\lambda st.f\,(k~st));\\
|
||||
\Put~st'~k \mapsto \Put\,\Record{st';f~k};\\
|
||||
\Done \mapsto \Done\}
|
||||
\el \smallskip\\
|
||||
\getF : \UnitType \to T~S\\
|
||||
\getF~\Unit \defas \DoF~(\Get\,(\lambda x.x)))\\
|
||||
\putF : S \to T~\UnitType\\
|
||||
\putF~st \defas \DoF~(\Put\,\Record{st;\Unit})
|
||||
\el
|
||||
\]
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Direct-style revolution}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8175,7 +8248,7 @@ $\Co$-operations have been handled.
|
||||
%
|
||||
In the definition the scheduler state is bound by the name $st$.
|
||||
|
||||
The $\return$ case is invoked when a process completes. The return
|
||||
The $\Return$ case is invoked when a process completes. The return
|
||||
value $x$ is paired with the identifier of the currently executing
|
||||
process and consed onto the list $done$. Subsequently, the function
|
||||
$\runNext$ is invoked in order to the next ready process.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user