Most of us at RabbitMQ HQ have spend time working in a number of functional languages in addition to Erlang, such as Haskell, Scheme, Lisp, OCaml or others. Whilst there is lots to like about Erlang, such as its VM/Emulator, there are inevitably features that we all miss from other languages. In my case, having spent a couple of years working in Haskell before returning to the RabbitMQ fold, all sorts of features are “missing”, such as laziness, type classes, additional infix operators, the ability to specify precedence of functions, fewer parenthesis, partial application, more consistent standard libraries and do-notation. That’s a fair list, and it’ll take me a while to get around to implementing them all in Erlang, but here are two for starters.

Erlando is a set of syntax extensions for Erlang. Currently it consists of two syntax extensions, both of which take the form of parse transformers.

**Cut**: This adds support for cuts to Erlang. These are inspired by the Scheme form of cuts. Cuts can be thought of as a light-weight form of abstraction, with similarities to partial application (or currying).**Do**: This adds support for do-syntax and monads to Erlang. These are heavily inspired by Haskell, and the monads and libraries are near-mechanical translations from the Haskell GHC libraries.

To use any of these parse transformers, you must add the necessary
`-compile`

attributes to your Erlang source files. For example:

```
-module(test).
-compile({parse_transform, cut}).
-compile({parse_transform, do}).
```

Then, when compiling `test.erl`

, you must ensure `erlc`

can locate
`cut.beam`

and/or `do.beam`

by passing the suitable path to `erlc`

with a
`-pa`

or `-pz`

argument. For example:

```
erlc -Wall +debug_info -I ./include -pa ebin -o ebin src/cut.erl
erlc -Wall +debug_info -I ./include -pa ebin -o ebin src/do.erl
erlc -Wall +debug_info -I ./include -pa test/ebin -pa ./ebin -o test/ebin test/src/test.erl
```

Note, if you’re using QLC, you may find you need to be careful as to
the order of the parse transforms: I’ve found that the
`-compile({parse_transform, cut}).`

must occur before the
`-include_lib("stdlib/include/qlc.hrl").`

Cut is motivated by the frequency with which simple abstractions (in a
lambda-calculus sense) are used in Erlang, and the relatively noisy
nature of declaring `fun`

s. For example, it’s quite common to see code
like:

```
with_resource(Resource, Fun) ->
case lookup_resource(Resource) of
{ok, R} -> Fun(R);
{error, _} = Err -> Err
end.
my_fun(A, B, C) ->
with_resource(A, fun (Resource) ->
my_resource_modification(Resource, B, C)
end).
```

I.e. a fun is very simply created in order to perform variable capture
from the its surrounding scope but to leave holes for further
arguments to be provided. Using a cut, the function `my_fun`

can be
rewritten as:

```
my_fun(A, B, C) ->
with_resource(A, my_resource_modification(_, B, C)).
```

Normally, the variable `_`

can only occur in patterns: i.e. where
match occurs. This can be in assignment, in cases, and in function
heads. For example:

```
{_, bar} = {foo, bar}.
```

Cut uses `_`

in expressions to indicate where abstraction should
occur. Abstraction from cuts is **always** performed on the
*shallowest* enclosing expression. For example:

```
list_to_binary([1, 2, math:pow(2, _)]).
```

will create the expression

```
list_to_binary([1, 2, fun (X) -> math:pow(2, X) end]).
```

and not

```
fun (X) -> list_to_binary([1, 2, math:pow(2, X)]) end.
```

It is fine to use multiple cuts in the same expression, and the
arguments to the created abstraction will match the order in which the
`_`

var is found in the expression. For example:

```
assert_sum_3(X, Y, Z, Sum) when X + Y + Z == Sum -> ok;
assert_sum_3(_X, _Y, _Z, _Sum) -> {error, not_sum}.
test() ->
Equals12 = assert_sum_3(_, _, _, 12),
ok = Equals12(9, 2, 1).
```

It is perfectly legal to take cuts of cuts as the abstraction created
by the cut is a normal `fun`

expression and thus can be re-cut as
necessary:

```
test() ->
Equals12 = assert_sum_3(_, _, _, 12),
Equals5 = Equals12(_, _, 7),
ok = Equals5(2, 3).
```

Note that because a simple `fun`

is being constructed by the cut, the
arguments are evaluated prior to the cut function. For example:

```
f1(_, _) -> io:format("in f1~n").
test() ->
F = f1(io:format("test line 1~n"), _),
F(io:format("test line 2~n")).
```

will print out

```
test line 2
test line 1
in f1
```

This is because the cut creates `fun (X) -> f1(io:format("test line 1~n"), X) end`

. Thus it is clear that `X`

must be evaluated first,
before the `fun`

can be invoked.

Of course, no one would be crazy enough to have side-effects in function argument expressions, so this will never cause any issues!

Cuts are not limited to function calls. They can be used in any expression where they make sense:

```
F = {_, 3},
{a, 3} = F(a).
```

```
dbl_cons(List) -> [_, _ | List].
test() ->
F = dbl_cons([33]),
[7, 8, 33] = F(7, 8).
```

Note that if you nest a list as a list tail in Erlang, it’s still treated as one expression. For example:

```
A = [a, b | [c, d | [e]]]
```

is exactly the same (right from the Erlang parser onwards) as:

```
A = [a, b, c, d, e]
```

I.e. those sub-lists, when they’re in the tail position **do not**
form sub-expressions. Thus:

```
F = [1, _, _, [_], 5 | [6, [_] | [_]]],
%% This is the same as:
%% [1, _, _, [_], 5, 6, [_], _]
[1, 2, 3, G, 5, 6, H, 8] = F(2, 3, 8),
[4] = G(4),
[7] = H(7).
```

However, be very clear about the difference between `,`

and `|`

: the
tail of a list is **only** defined following a `|`

. Following a `,`

,
you’re just defining another list element.

```
F = [_, [_]],
%% This is **not** the same as [_, _] or its synonym: [_ | [_]]
[a, G] = F(a),
[b] = G(b).
```

```
-record(vector, { x, y, z }).
test() ->
GetZ = _#vector.z,
7 = GetZ(#vector { z = 7 }),
SetX = _#vector{x = _},
V = #vector{ x = 5, y = 4 } = SetX(#vector{ y = 4 }, 5).
```

```
F = case _ of
N when is_integer(N) -> N + N;
N -> N
end,
10 = F(5),
ok = F(ok).
```

See test_cut.erl for more examples, including use of cuts in list comprehensions and binary construction.

Note that cuts are not allowed where the result of the cut can only be useful by interacting with the evaluation scope. For example:

```
F = begin _, _, _ end.
```

This is not allowed, because the arguments to `F`

would have to be
evaluated before the invocation of its body, which would then have no
effect, as they’re already fully evaluated by that point.

The Do parse transformer permits Haskell-style *do-notation* in
Erlang, which makes using monads, and monad transformers possible and
easy. Without *do-notation*, monads tend to look like a lot of line
noise.

What follows is a brief and mechanical introduction to monads. It differs from a lot of the Haskell monad tutorials, because they tend to view monads as a means of achieving sequencing of operations in Haskell, which is challenging because Haskell is a lazy language. Erlang is not a lazy language, but the powerful abstractions possible from using monads are still very worthwhile. Whilst this is a very mechanical tutorial, it should be possible to see the more advanced abstractions possible.

Let’s say we have the three lines of code:

```
A = foo(),
B = bar(A, dog),
ok.
```

They are three, simple statements, which are evaluated consecutively. What a monad gives you is control over what happens between the statements: in Erlang, it is a programmatic comma.

If you wanted to implement a programmatic comma, how would you do it? You might start with something like:

```
A = foo(),
comma(),
B = bar(A, dog),
comma(),
ok.
```

But that’s not quite powerful enough, because unless `comma/0`

throws
some sort of exception, it can’t actually stop the subsequent
expression from being evaluated. Most of the time we’d probably like
the `comma/0`

function to be able to act on some variables which are
currently in scope, and that’s not possible here either. So we should
extend the function `comma/0`

so that it takes the result of the
preceding expression, and can choose whether or not the subsequent
expressions should be evaluated:

```
comma(foo(),
fun (A) -> comma(bar(A, dog),
fun (B) -> ok end)).
```

Thus the function `comma/2`

takes all results from the previous
expression, and controls how and whether they are passed to the next
expression.

As defined, the `comma/2`

function is the monadic function `>>=/2`

.

Now it’s pretty difficult to read the program with the `comma/2`

function (especially as Erlang annoyingly doesn’t allow us to define
new infix functions), which is why some special syntax is
necessary. Haskell has it’s *do-notation*, and so we’ve borrowed from
that and abused Erlang’s list comprehensions. Haskell also has lovely
type-classes, which we’ve sort of faked specifically for monads. So,
with the Do parse transformer, you can write in Erlang:

```
do([Monad ||
A <- foo(),
B <- bar(A, dog),
ok]).
```

which is readable and straightforward, but is transformed into:

```
Monad:'>>='(foo(),
fun (A) -> Monad:'>>='(bar(A, dog),
fun (B) -> ok end)).
```

There is no intention that this latter form is any more readable than
the `comma/2`

form - it is not. However, it should be clear that the
function `Monad:'>>='/2`

now has complete control over what happens:
does the fun on the right hand side ever get invoked? If so, with what
value?

So now that we have some relatively nice syntax for using monads, what can we do with them? Also, in the code

```
do([Monad ||
A <- foo(),
B <- bar(A, dog),
ok]).
```

what are the possible values of `Monad`

?

The answer to the first question is *almost anything*; and to the
later question, is *any module name that implements the monad
behaviour*.

Above, we covered one of the three monadic operators, `>>=/2`

. The
others are:

`return/1`

: This*lifts*a value into the monad. We’ll see examples of this shortly.`fail/1`

: This takes a term describing the error encountered, and informs whichever monad currently in use that some sort of error has occurred.

Note that within *do-notation*, any function call to functions named
`return`

or `fail`

, are automatically rewritten to invoke `return`

or
`fail`

within the current monad.

Some people familiar with Haskell’s monads may be expecting to see a
fourth operator, `>>/2`

. Interestingly, it turns out that you can’t
implement `>>/2`

in a strict language unless all your monad types are
built on top a function. This is because in a strict language,
arguments to functions are evaluated before the function is
invoked. For `>>=/2`

, the 2nd argument is only reduced to a function
prior to invocation of `>>=/2`

. But the 2nd argument to `>>/2`

is not
a function, and so in strict languages, will be fully reduced prior to
`>>/2`

being invoked. This is problematic because the `>>/2`

operator
is meant to be in control of whether or not subsequent expressions are
evaluated. The only solution here would be to make the basic monad
type a function, which would then mean that the 2nd argument to
`>>=/2`

would become a function to a function to a result! However, it
is required that `'>>'(A, B)`

behaves identically to `'>>='(A, fun (_) -> B end)`

, and so that is what we do: whenever we come to a
`do([Monad || A, B ])`

, we rewrite it to `'>>='(A, fun (_) -> B end)`

rather than `'>>'(A, B)`

. The effect of this is that the `>>/2`

operator does not exist.

The simplest monad possible is the Identity-monad:

```
-module(identity_m).
-behaviour(monad).
-export(['>>='/2, return/1, fail/1]).
'>>='(X, Fun) -> Fun(X).
return(X) -> X.
fail(X) -> throw({error, X}).
```

This makes our programmatic comma behave just like Erlang’s comma
normally does. The **bind** operator (`>>=/2`

) does not inspect the
values passed to it, and always invokes the subsequent expression fun.

What could we do if we did inspect the values passed to the sequencing combinators? One possibility results in the Maybe-monad:

```
-module(maybe_m).
-behaviour(monad).
-export(['>>='/2, return/1, fail/1]).
'>>='({just, X}, Fun) -> Fun(X);
'>>='(nothing, _Fun) -> nothing.
return(X) -> {just, X}.
fail(_X) -> nothing.
```

Thus if the result of the preceding expression is `nothing`

, then the
subsequent expressions are not evaluated. This means that we can write
very neat looking code which immediately stops should any failure be
encountered.

```
if_safe_div_zero(X, Y, Fun) ->
do([maybe_m ||
Result <- case Y == 0 of
true -> fail("Cannot divide by zero");
false -> return(X / Y)
end,
return(Fun(Result))]).
```

If `Y`

is equal to 0, then `Fun`

will not be invoked, and the result
of the `if_safe_div_zero`

function call will be `nothing`

. If `Y`

is
not equal to 0, then the result of the `if_safe_div_zero`

function
call will be `{just, Fun(X / Y)}`

.

We see here that within the do-block, there is no mention of `nothing`

or `just`

: they are abstracted away by the Maybe-monad. As a result,
it is possible to change the monad in use, without having to rewrite
any further code.

One common place to use a monad like the Maybe-monad is where you’d otherwise have a lot of nested case statements in order to detect errors. For example:

```
write_file(Path, Data, Modes) ->
Modes1 = [binary, write | (Modes -- [binary, write])],
case make_binary(Data) of
Bin when is_binary(Bin) ->
case file:open(Path, Modes1) of
{ok, Hdl} ->
case file:write(Hdl, Bin) of
ok ->
case file:sync(Hdl) of
ok ->
file:close(Hdl);
{error, _} = E ->
file:close(Hdl),
E
end;
{error, _} = E ->
file:close(Hdl),
E
end;
{error, _} = E -> E
end;
{error, _} = E -> E
end.
make_binary(Bin) when is_binary(Bin) ->
Bin;
make_binary(List) ->
try
iolist_to_binary(List)
catch error:Reason ->
{error, Reason}
end.
```

can be transformed into the much shorter

```
write_file(Path, Data, Modes) ->
Modes1 = [binary, write | (Modes -- [binary, write])],
do([error_m ||
Bin <- make_binary(Data),
{ok, Hdl} <- file:open(Path, Modes1),
{ok, Result} <- return(do([error_m ||
ok <- file:write(Hdl, Bin),
file:sync(Hdl)])),
file:close(Hdl),
Result]).
```

Note that we have a nested do-block so that, as with the non-monadic
code, we ensure that once the file is opened, we always call
`file:close/1`

even if an error occurs in a subsequent operation. This
is achieved by wrapping the nested do-block with a `return/1`

call:
even if the inner do-block errors, the error is *lifted* to a
non-error value in the outer do-block, and thus execution continues to
the subsequent `file:close/1`

call.

Here we are using an Error-monad which is remarkably similar to the
Maybe-monad, but matches the typical Erlang practice of indicating
errors by an `{error, Reason}`

tuple:

```
-module(error_m).
-behaviour(monad).
-export(['>>='/2, return/1, fail/1]).
'>>='({error, _Err} = Error, _Fun) -> Error;
'>>='(Result, Fun) -> Fun(Result).
return(X) -> {ok, X}.
fail(X) -> {error, X}.
```

Monads can be *nested* by having do-blocks inside do-blocks, and
*parameterized* by defining a monad as a transformation of another, inner,
monad. The State Transform is a very commonly used monad transformer,
and is especially relevant for Erlang. Because Erlang is a
single-assignment language, it’s very common to end up with a lot of
code that incrementally numbers variables:

```
State1 = init(Dimensions),
State2 = plant_seeds(SeedCount, State1),
{DidFlood, State3} = pour_on_water(WaterVolume, State2),
State4 = apply_sunlight(Time, State3),
{DidFlood2, State5} = pour_on_water(WaterVolume, State4),
{Crop, State6} = harvest(State5),
...
```

This is doubly annoying, not only because it looks awful, but also
because you have to re-number many variables and references whenever a
line is added or removed. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could abstract out the
`State`

? We could then have a monad encapsulate the state and provide
it to (and collect it from) the functions we wish to run.

Our implementation of monad-transformers (like State) uses a “hidden feature”
of the Erlang distribution called *parameterized modules*. These are
described in Parameterized Modules in Erlang.

The State-transform can be applied to any monad. If we apply it to the
Identity-monad then we get what we’re looking for. The key extra
functionality that the State transformer provides us with is the
ability to `get`

and `set`

(or just plain `modify`

) state from within
the inner monad. If we use both the Do and Cut parse transformers, we
can write:

```
StateT = state_t:new(identity_m),
SM = StateT:modify(_),
SMR = StateT:modify_and_return(_),
StateT:exec(
do([StateT ||
StateT:put(init(Dimensions)),
SM(plant_seeds(SeedCount, _)),
DidFlood <- SMR(pour_on_water(WaterVolume, _)),
SM(apply_sunlight(Time, _)),
DidFlood2 <- SMR(pour_on_water(WaterVolume, _)),
Crop <- SMR(harvest(_)),
...
]), undefined).
```

We start by creating a State-transform over the Identity-monad.

This is the syntax for *instantiating* parameterized modules. `StateT`

is a
variable referencing a module instance which, in this case, is a monad.

We set up two shorthands for running functions that either just
modify the state, or modify the state *and* return a result. Whilst
there’s a bit of bookkeeping to do, we achieve our goal: there are no
state variables now to renumber whenever we make a change: we use cut
to leave holes in the functions where State should be fed in, and we
obey the protocol that if functions return both a result and state, it
should be in the form of a `{Result, State}`

tuple. The
State-transform does the rest.

There are some standard monad functions such as `join/2`

and
`sequence/2`

available in the `monad`

module. We have also implemented
`monad_plus`

which works for monads where there’s an obvious sense of
*zero* and *plus* (currently Maybe-monad, List-monad, and Omega-monad).
The associated functions `guard`

, `msum`

and `mfilter`

are available
in the `monad_plus`

module.

In many cases, a fairly mechanical translation from Haskell to Erlang is possible, so in many cases converting other monads or combinators should be straightforward. However, the lack of type classes in Erlang is limiting.

Tags: cut erlando erlang monad

Written by: Matthew Sackman

Categories: Programming Languages