Tying the Knot with a State monad

Question

I'm working on a Haskell project that involves tying a big knot: I'm parsing a serialized representation of a graph, where each node is at some offset into the file, and may reference another node by its offset. So I need to build up a map from offsets to nodes while parsing, which I can feed back to myself in a do rec block.

I have this working, and kinda-sorta-reasonably abstracted into a StateT-esque monad transformer:

{-# LANGUAGE DoRec, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}

import qualified Control.Monad.State as S

data Knot s = Knot { past :: s, future :: s }

newtype RecStateT s m a = RecStateT (S.StateT (Knot s) m a) deriving
  ( Alternative
  , Applicative
  , Functor
  , Monad
  , MonadCont
  , MonadError e
  , MonadFix
  , MonadIO
  , MonadPlus
  , MonadReader r
  , MonadTrans
  , MonadWriter w )

runRecStateT :: RecStateT s m a -> Knot s -> m (a, Knot s)
runRecStateT (RecStateT st) = S.runStateT st

tie :: MonadFix m => RecStateT s m a -> s -> m (a, s)
tie m s = do
  rec (a, Knot s' _) <- runRecStateT m (Knot s s')
  return (a, s')

get :: Monad m => RecStateT s m (Knot s)
get = RecStateT S.get

put :: Monad m => s -> RecStateT s m ()
put s = RecStateT $ S.modify $ \ ~(Knot _ s') -> Knot s s'

The tie function is where the magic happens: the call to runRecStateT produces a value and a state, which I feed it as its own future. Note that get allows you to read from both the past and future states, but put only allows you to modify the "present."

Question 1: Does this seem like a decent way to implement this knot-tying pattern in general? Or better still, has somebody implemented a general solution to this, that I overlooked when snooping through Hackage? I beat my head against the Cont monad for a while, since it seemed possibly more elegant (see similar post from Dan Burton), but I just couldn't work it out.

Totally subjective Question 2: I'm not totally thrilled with the way my calling code ends up looking:

do
  Knot past future <- get
  let {- ... -} = past
      {- ... -} = future
      node = {- ... -}
  put $ {- ... -}
  return node

Implementation details here omitted, obviously, the important point being that I have to get the past and future state, pattern-match them inside a let binding (or explicitly make the previous pattern lazy) to extract whatever I care about, then build my node, update my state and finally return the node. Seems unnecessarily verbose, and I particularly dislike how easy it is to accidentally make the pattern that extracts the past and future states strict. So, can anybody think of a nicer interface?

Answer 1

I've been playing around with stuff, and I think I've come up with something... interesting. I call it the "Seer" monad, and it provides (aside from Monad operations) two primitive operations:

see  :: Monoid s => Seer s s
send :: Monoid s => s -> Seer s ()

and a run operation:

runSeer :: Monoid s => Seer s a -> a

The way this monad works is that see allows a seer to see everything, and send allows a seer to "send" information to all other seers for them to see. Whenever any seer performs the see operation, they are able to see all of the information that has been sent, and all of the information that will be sent. In other words, within a given run, see will always produce the same result no matter where or when you call it. Another way of saying it is that see is how you get a working reference to the "tied" knot.

This is actually very similar to just using fix, except that all of the sub-parts are added incrementally and implicitly, rather than explicitly. Obviously, seers will not work correctly in the presence of a paradox, and sufficient laziness is required. For example, see >>= send may cause an explosion of information, trapping you in a time loop.

A dumb example:

import Control.Seer
import qualified Data.Map as M
import Data.Map (Map, (!))

bar :: Seer (Map Int Char) String
bar = do
  m <- see
  send (M.singleton 1 $ succ (m ! 2))
  send (M.singleton 2 'c')
  return [m ! 1, m ! 2]

As I said, I've just been toying around, so I have no idea if this is any better than what you've got, or if it's any good at all! But it's nifty, and relevant, and if your "knot" state is a Monoid, then it just might be useful to you. Fair warning: I built Seer by using a Tardis.

https://github.com/DanBurton/tardis/blob/master/Control/Seer.hs

Answer 2

I wrote up an article on this topic at entitled Assembly: Circular Programming with Recursive do where I describe two methods for building an assembler using knot tying. Like your problem, an assembler has to be able to resolve address of labels that may occur later in the file.