# Freer play with effects

- Magnus Therning

In the previous posts on my playing with free I got stuck at combining APIs. I recalled reading a paper on extensible effects as an alternatve to monad transformers. I have to admit to not having finished the paper, and not quite understanding the part I did read. When looking it up again I found that the work had continued and that there is a paper on more extensible effects. (I got to it via http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/extensible/.)

A quick search of Hackage revealed the package extensible-effects with an implementation of the ideas, including the stuff in the latter paper. So, what would the examples from my previous posts look like using extensible effects?

### Opening

The examples require a few extensions and modules:

```
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators #-}
```

and

```
import Control.Eff
import Control.Eff.Lift
import Control.Eff.Operational
import Data.Typeable
```

### Just an API

This part was greatly helped by the fact that there is a example in extensible-effects.

I start with defining the `SimpleFile`

API using GADTs

```
data SimpleFileAPI a where
LoadFile :: FilePath -> SimpleFileAPI String
SaveFile :: FilePath -> String -> SimpleFileAPI ()
```

The usage of the constructors need to be wrapped up in `singleton`

. To remember that I create two convenience functions

```
loadFile :: Member (Program SimpleFileAPI) r => FilePath -> Eff r String
= singleton . LoadFile
loadFile
saveFile :: Member (Program SimpleFileAPI) r => FilePath -> String -> Eff r ()
= singleton . SaveFile fp saveFile fp
```

For `withSimpleFile`

I only have to modify the type

```
withSimpleFile :: Member (Program SimpleFileAPI) r => (String -> String) -> FilePath -> Eff r ()
= do
withSimpleFile f fp <- loadFile fp
d let result = f d
++ "_new") result saveFile (fp
```

Now for the gut of it, the interpreter.

```
runSimpleFile :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => Eff (Program SimpleFileAPI :> r) a -> Eff r a
= runProgram f
runSimpleFile where
f :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => SimpleFileAPI a -> Eff r a
LoadFile fp) = lift $ readFile fp
f (SaveFile fp s) = lift $ writeFile fp s f (
```

Runnnig it is fairly simple after this

```
> :! cat test.txt
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec a diam lectus.
Sed sit amet ipsum mauris. Maecenas congue ligula ac quam viverra nec
consectetur ante hendrerit.
> runLift $ runSimpleFile $ withSimpleFile (map toUpper) "test.txt"
> :! cat test.txt_new
LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT. DONEC A DIAM LECTUS.
SED SIT AMET IPSUM MAURIS. MAECENAS CONGUE LIGULA AC QUAM VIVERRA NEC
CONSECTETUR ANTE HENDRERIT.
```

Now, that was pretty easy. It looks almost exactly like when using `Free`

, only without the `Functor`

instance and rather more complicated types.

### Combining two APIs

Now I get to the stuff that I didn’t manage to do using `Free`

; combining two different APIs.

I start with defining another API. This one is truly a play example, sorry for that, but it doesn’t really matter. The type with convenience function looks like this

```
data StdIoAPI a where
WriteStrLn :: String -> StdIoAPI ()
writeStrLn :: Member (Program StdIoAPI) r => String -> Eff r ()
= singleton . WriteStrLn writeStrLn
```

The interpreter then is straight forward

```
runStdIo :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => Eff (Program StdIoAPI :> r) a -> Eff r a
= runProgram f
runStdIo where
f :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => StdIoAPI a -> Eff r a
WriteStrLn s) = lift $ putStrLn s f (
```

Now I just need a program that combines the two APIs

```
verboseWithSimpleFile :: (Member (Program StdIoAPI) r, Member (Program SimpleFileAPI) r) =>
String -> String) -> String -> Eff r ()
(= writeStrLn ("verboseWithSimpleFile on " ++ fp) >> withSimpleFile f fp verboseWithSimpleFile f fp
```

That type is surprisingly clear I find, albeit a bit on the long side. Running it is just a matter of combining `runStdIo`

and `runSimpleFile`

.

```
> :! cat test.txt
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec a diam lectus.
Sed sit amet ipsum mauris. Maecenas congue ligula ac quam viverra nec
consectetur ante hendrerit.
> runLift $ runSimpleFile $ runStdIo $ verboseWithSimpleFile (map toUpper) "test.txt"
verboseWithSimpleFile on test.txt
> :! cat test.txt_new
LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT. DONEC A DIAM LECTUS.
SED SIT AMET IPSUM MAURIS. MAECENAS CONGUE LIGULA AC QUAM VIVERRA NEC
CONSECTETUR ANTE HENDRERIT.
```

Oh, and it doesn’t matter in what order the interpreters are run!

At this point I got really excited about `Eff`

because now it’s obvious that I’ll be able to write the logging “decorator”, in fact it’s clear that it’ll be rather simple too.

### The logging

As before I start with a data type and a convenience function

```
data LoggerAPI a where
Log :: String -> LoggerAPI ()
logStr :: Member (Program LoggerAPI) r => String -> Eff r ()
= singleton . Log logStr
```

For the decorating I can make use of the fact that APIs can be combined like I did above. That is, I don’t need to bother with any *coproduct* (`Sum`

) or anything like that, I can simply just push in a call to `logStr`

before each use of `SimpleFileAPI`

```
logSimpleFileOp :: (Member (Program SimpleFileAPI) r, Member (Program LoggerAPI) r) => SimpleFileAPI a -> Eff r a
@(LoadFile fp) = logStr ("LoadFile " ++ fp) *> singleton op
logSimpleFileOp op@(SaveFile fp _) = logStr ("SaveFile " ++ fp) *> singleton op logSimpleFileOp op
```

Of course an interpreter is needed as well

```
runLogger :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => Eff (Program LoggerAPI :> r) a -> Eff r a
= runProgram f
runLogger where
f :: (Member (Lift IO) r, SetMember Lift (Lift IO) r) => LoggerAPI a -> Eff r a
Log s) = lift $ putStrLn s f (
```

Running is, once again, a matter of stacking interpreters

```
> :! cat test.txt
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec a diam lectus.
Sed sit amet ipsum mauris. Maecenas congue ligula ac quam viverra nec
consectetur ante hendrerit.
> runLift $ runLogger $ runSimpleFile $ runProgram logSimpleFileOp $ withSimpleFile (map toUpper) "test.txt"
LoadFile test.txt
SaveFile test.txt_new
> :! cat test.txt_new
LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT. DONEC A DIAM LECTUS.
SED SIT AMET IPSUM MAURIS. MAECENAS CONGUE LIGULA AC QUAM VIVERRA NEC
CONSECTETUR ANTE HENDRERIT.
```

### Closing thoughts

With `Eff`

I’ve pretty much arrived where I wanted, I can

- define APIs of operations in a simple way (simpler than when using
`Free`

even). - write a definitional interpreter for the operations.
- combine two different APIs in the same function.
- translate from one API to another (or even to a set of other APIs).

On top, I can do this without having to write a ridiculous amount of code.

I’m sure there are drawbacks as well. There’s a mention of some of them in the paper. However, for my typical uses of Haskell I haven’t read anything that would be a deal breaker.