Paper detail

Equational Reasoning for MTL Type Classes

Ability to use definitions occurring in the code directly in equational reasoning is one of the key strengths of functional programming. This is impossible in the case of Haskell type class methods unless a particular instance type is specified, since class methods can be defined differently for different instances. To allow uniform reasoning for all instances, many type classes in the Haskell library come along with laws (axioms), specified in comments, that all instances are expected to follow (albeit Haskell is unable to force it). For the type classes introduced in the Monad Transformer Library (MTL), such laws have not been specified; nevertheless, some sets of axioms have occurred in the literature and the Haskell mailing lists. This paper investigates sets of laws usable for equational reasoning about methods of the type classes MonadReader and MonadWriter and also reviews analogous earlier proposals for the classes MonadError and MonadState. For both MonadReader and MonadWriter, an equivalence result of two alternative axiomatizations in terms of different sets of operations is established. As a sideline, patterns in the choice of methods of different classes are noticed which may inspire new developments in MTL.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.