-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
/
Copy pathCBAny.hs
291 lines (240 loc) · 6.29 KB
/
CBAny.hs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
-- * Almost Haskell98. See CB98,hs for the genuine Haskell98 version
-- Here we use a few extensions to make the code prettier
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE EmptyDataDecls #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
-- * Embedding a higher-order domain-specific language (simply-typed
-- * lambda-calculus with constants) with a selectable evaluation order:
-- * Call-by-value, call-by-name, call-by-need
module CBAny where
import Data.IORef
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.Trans
-- The (higher-order abstract) syntax of our DSL
type Arr exp a b = exp a -> exp b
class EDSL exp where
int :: Int -> exp Int -- This part is like before
add :: exp Int -> exp Int -> exp Int
sub :: exp Int -> exp Int -> exp Int
lam :: (exp a -> exp b) -> exp (Arr exp a b)
app :: exp (Arr exp a b) -> exp a -> exp b
-- A convenient abbreviation (could've been called `bind')
let_ :: EDSL exp => exp a -> (exp a -> exp b) -> exp b
let_ x y = (lam y) `app` x
-- A sample EDSL term
t :: EDSL exp => exp Int
t = (lam $ \x -> let_ (x `add` x)
$ \y -> y `add` y) `app` int 10
-- * Write a term once, evaluate many times (with different orders)
-- * //
-- * Embedding of the DSL into Haskell
-- An EDSL expression of the type a is interpreted as a Haskell value
-- of the type S l m a, where m is a Monad (the parameter of the interpretation)
-- and l is the label for the evaluation order (one of Name, Value, or Lazy).
newtype S l m a = S { unS :: m a } deriving (Monad, MonadIO)
-- * //
-- * Call-by-name
data Name -- The label
-- We use IO to print out the evaluation trace, so to observe
-- the difference in evaluation orders
instance MonadIO m => EDSL (S Name m) where
int = return
add x y = do a <- x
b <- y
liftIO $ putStrLn "Adding"
return (a + b)
sub x y = do a <- x
b <- y
liftIO $ putStrLn "Subtracting"
return (a - b)
lam f = return f
app x y = x >>= ($ y)
-- Tests
runName :: S Name m a -> m a
runName x = unS x
-- The addition (x `add` x) is performed twice because y is bound
-- to a computation, and y is evaluated twice
t0SN = runName t >>= print
{-
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- A more elaborate example
t1 :: EDSL exp => exp Int
t1 = (lam $ \x -> let_ (x `add` x)
$ \y -> lam $ \z ->
z `add` (z `add` (y `add` y))) `app` (int 10 `sub` int 5)
`app` (int 20 `sub` int 10)
t1SN = runName t1 >>= print
{-
*CB> t1SN
Subtracting
Subtracting
Subtracting
Subtracting
Adding
Subtracting
Subtracting
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- A better example
t2 :: EDSL exp => exp Int
t2 = (lam $ \z -> lam $ \x -> let_ (x `add` x)
$ \y -> y `add` y) `app` (int 100 `sub` int 10)
`app` (int 5 `add` int 5)
-- The result of subtraction was not needed, and so it was not performed
-- OTH, (int 5 `add` int 5) was computed four times
t2SN = runName t2 >>= print
{-
*CB> t2SN
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- * //
-- * Call-by-value
-- * The only difference is the interpretation of lam:
-- * before evaluating the body, _always_ evaluate the argument
data Value
-- We reuse most of EDSL (S Name) except for lam
vn :: S Value m x -> S Name m x
vn = S . unS
nv :: S Name m x -> S Value m x
nv = S . unS
instance MonadIO m => EDSL (S Value m) where
int = nv . int
add x y = nv $ add (vn x) (vn y)
sub x y = nv $ sub (vn x) (vn y)
-- Easier to write it rather than to change the label and then
-- invoke S Name's app
app x y = x >>= ($ y)
-- This is the only difference between CBN and CBV:
-- lam first evaluates its argument, no matter what
-- This is the definition of CBV after all
-- lam f = return (\x -> (f . return) =<< x)
-- or, in the pointless notation suggested by Jacques Carette
lam f = return (f . return =<<)
runValue :: S Value m a -> m a
runValue x = unS x
-- We now evaluate the previously written tests t, t1, t2
-- under the new interpretation
t0SV = runValue t >>= print
{-
*CB> t0SV
Adding
Adding
40
-}
t1SV = runValue t1 >>= print
{-
*CB> t1SV
Subtracting
Adding
Subtracting
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- Although the result of subs-traction was not needed, it was still performed
-- OTH, (int 5 `add` int 5) was computed only once
t2SV = runValue t2 >>= print
{-
*CB> t2SV
Subtracting
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- * //
-- * Call-by-need
-- * The only difference is the interpretation of lam:
-- * before evaluating the body, share the argument
-- * The argument is evaluated _at most_ once
share :: MonadIO m => m a -> m (m a)
share m = do
r <- liftIO $ newIORef (False,m)
let ac = do
(f,m) <- liftIO $ readIORef r
if f then m
else do
v <- m
liftIO $ writeIORef r (True,return v)
return v
return ac
data Lazy
ln :: S Lazy m x -> S Name m x
ln = S . unS
nl :: S Name m x -> S Lazy m x
nl = S . unS
-- We reuse most of EDSL (S Name) except for lam
instance MonadIO m => EDSL (S Lazy m) where
int = nl . int
add x y = nl $ add (ln x) (ln y)
sub x y = nl $ sub (ln x) (ln y)
-- Easier to write it rather than change the label and then
-- invoke S Name's app
app x y = x >>= ($ y)
-- This is the only difference between CBN and CBNeed
-- lam shares its argument, no matter what
-- This is the definition of CBNeed after all
-- lam f = return (\x -> f =<< share x)
-- Or, in the pointless notation
lam f = return ((f =<<) . share)
runLazy :: S Lazy m a -> m a
runLazy x = unS x
-- We now evaluate the previously written tests t, t1, t2
-- under the new interpretation
-- Here, Lazy is just as efficient as CBV
t0SL = runLazy t >>= print
{-
*CB> t0SL
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- Ditto
t1SL = runLazy t1 >>= print
{-
*CB> t1SL
Subtracting
Subtracting
Adding
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
-- Now, Lazy is better than both CBN and CBV: subtraction was not needed,
-- and it was not performed.
-- All other expressions were needed, and evaluated once.
t2SL = runLazy t2 >>= print
{-
*CB> t2SL
Adding
Adding
Adding
40
-}
main = do
t0SN >>= print
t1SN >>= print
t2SN >>= print
t0SV >>= print
t1SV >>= print
t2SV >>= print
t0SL >>= print
t1SL >>= print
t2SL >>= print