Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next


Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

C-ORM: docs, API.

Last 100 entries

[Link] Linux Threads; [Link] Punycode; [Link] Bull / Girl Statues on Wall Street; [Link] Beautiful Chair Video; Update: Lower Pressures; [Link] Neat Python Exceptions; [Link] Fix for Windows 10 to Avoid Ads; [Link] Attacks on ZRTP; [Link] UK Jazz Invasion; [Review] Cuba; [Link] Aricle on Gender Reversal of US Presidential Debate; {OpenSuse] Fix for Network Offline in Updater Applet; [Link] Parkinson's Related to Gut Flora; Farellones Bike Park; [Meta] Tags; Update: Second Ride; Schwalbe Thunder Burt 2.1 v Continental X-King 2.4; Mountain Biking in Santiago; Books on Ethics; Security Fail from Command Driven Interface; Everything Old is New Again; Interesting Take on Trump's Lies; Chutney v6; References on Entropy; Amusing "Alexa.." broadcast; The Shame of Chile's Education System; Playing mp4 gifs in Firefox on Opensuses Leap 42.2; Concurrency at Microsoft; Globalisation: Uk -> Chile; OpenSuse 42.2 and Synaptics Touch-Pads; Even; Cherry Jam; Lebanese Writer Amin Maalouf; C++ - it's the language of the future; Learning From Trump; Chinese Writer Hu Fayun; And; Apricot Jam; Also; Excellent Article on USA Politics; Oh Metafilter; Prejudice Against The Rurals; Also, Zizek; Trump; Why Trump Won; Doxygen + Latex on CentOS 6; SMASH - Solve 5 Biggest Problems in Physics; Good article on racism, brexit, and social divides; Grandaddy are back!; Consciousness From Max Entropy; Democrats; Harvard Will Fix Black Poverty; Modelling Bicycle Wheels; Amusing Polling Outlier; If Labour keeps telling working class people...; Populism and Choice; Books on Defeat; Enrique Ferrari - Argentine Author; Transcript of German Scientists on Learning of Hiroshima; Calvert Journal; Owen Jones on Twitter; Possible Japanese Authors; Complex American Literature; Chutney v5; Weird Componentized Virus; Interesting Argentinian Author - Antonio Di Benedetto; Useful Thread on MetaPhysics; RAND on fighting online anarchy (2001); NSA Hacked; Very Good LRB Article on Brexit; Nussbaum on Anger; Tasting; Apple + Kiwi Jam; Hit Me; Sudoku - CSP + Chaos; Recycling Electronics In Santiago; Vector Displays in OpenGL; And Anti-Aliased; OpenGL - Render via Intermediate Texture; And Garmin Connect; Using Garmin Forerunner 230 With Linux; (Beating Dead Horse) StackOverflow; Current State of Justice in China; Axiom of Determinacy; Ewww; Fee Chaos Book; Course on Differential Geometry; Okay, but...; Sparse Matrices, Deep Learning; Sounds Bad; Applebaum Rape; Tomato Chutney v4; Have to add...; Culturally Liberal and Nothing More; Weird Finite / Infinite Result; Your diamond is a beaten up mess; Maths Books; Good Bike Route from Providencia / Las Condes to Panul; Iain Pears (Author of Complex Plots); Plum Jam; Excellent

© 2006-2017 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Monads in Python

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 08:14:08 -0400 (CLT)

[When I sat down to write this note I thought I better do due diligence
and see if there's already a solution out there - although of course I'd
already written the code.  I found this amazing work -
- which is a completely different take.  I don't understand exactly how
that works, but I think it's interesting to compare the two approaches:

My code below is, I think, much more aligned with the rest of Python
(where context is frequently explicit - for example 'self').  On the other
hand, it's nowhere near as impressive (and perhaps my code isn't even
right - I am not sure if I am "really" implementing Monads, or just making
something that looks vaguely like them)]

OK, so I am writing some client code (a GUI desktop app) and I have
finally got to the part where the program does something.  Trouble is, I
would also like to be able to undo that something.  So I need an "undo"
action.  And to implement that I need to be careful about what an "action"

I won't go into all the details, but it became obvious that I needed a way
to define a sequence of events, and then to execute that sequence of
events (for "undo" each event also generates its inverse and appends it to
a separate "undo sequence" that is created as the "do" sequence

I also needed some way to refer to the results of a previous event.  For
example, if I had a two step process where the first step created a Foo
and the next step called then I needed to be able to reference
the Foo I had created in the first step.

When I was half way through implementing a couple of classes to do what I
just sketched I realised it was *awfully* like the IO Monad in Haskell. 
So I started thinking about how I could make it closer.  At first I
focused on syntax, but it soon dawned on me (being less smart than whoever
wrote the post above) that I was making really slow progress because I was
fighting against the language.

Once I stopped fighting Python and instead tried to "roll with it", things
became a lot easier.  Instead of trying to somehow get arbitrary chunks of
code into my syntax I decided that each "action" in a sequence would be a
"callable" (ie a function or an object that implements __call__).  And
instead of trying to bind names in the current context, I decided to use
an explicit context, much like "self".

The result is code like this test case:

class SequenceTest(TestCase):

    def test_sequence(self):
        self.called = False
        def foo():
            self.called = True
        s = Sequence()
        s.a = lambda: 'A'
        s.b = lambda: self.assertEqual('A', s.a)
        s.c = lambda: self.assertFalse('c' in dir(s))
        s < (lambda: self.assertTrue('c' in dir(s)))
        s < foo
        self.assertFalse('a' in dir(s))
        self.assertTrue('a' in dir(s))

That might be a bit opaque, so I'll explain:

 - First, foo() is defined as a function that sets "called" to True.
   We use that later to test the timing of calls.

 - Next, s is defined as a Sequence.  This is my equivalent of the
   IO Monad.  All it really does is store a bunch of steps to execute

 - Next I defined the steps.
   - First a function that returns "A" will be evaluated and the
     result ("A") bound to "a".
   - Next we'll execute a function that tests the above (and
     bind None to "b" as it happens).
   - Next we'll execute a test showing that the action "in progress"
     is not yet bound (a bit obscure)
   - Next an "anonymous" step that tests that the step above had
     worked correctly.
   - Finally an anonymous step (ie result not bound to anything)
     that calls foo and so sets "called"

 - Before we call the sequence we check that called is still false
   and that the value "a" is unbound.

 - Then we execute the sequence by calling it "s()"

 - The sequence runs OK (all the tests pass) and we can then see
   that "called" true and the name "a" is bound.

I also used the same basis to write a Maybe monad.  I won't explain the
details, but here are the two tests.  Note that, again, I am going with
the flow and using Python's "None" as the failure value (this is a very
common Python idiom - much like NULL in SQL, and probably as ill-advised).

class MaybeTest(TestCase):

    def test_something(self):
        m = Maybe()
        m.a = lambda: 1
        m.b = lambda: False
        m.c = lambda: m.a + 2
        self.assertEqual(3, m())

    def test_nothing(self):
        m = Maybe()
        m.a = lambda: 1
        m.b = lambda: None
        m.c = lambda: m.a + 2
        self.assertEqual(None, m())

Note that I used lamda above for simple tests.  In practice my "actions"
implement __call__ so look more like:

    s = Sequence() = CreateFoo()
    s < CallBar(

and they are invoked with:

    undo = Sequence()

which lets them append their inverse actions to the undo sequence as they

OK, so the implementation:

class Monad(object):

    def __init__(self, *args, **kargs):
        super(Monad, self).__init__(*args, **kargs)
        self._sequence = []
        self._context = {}

    def __setattr__(self, name, value):
        Value should be a callable and will be invoked with the
        arguments passed to __call__

        On evaluation, name will be bound to the value returned and
        then available via normal attribute access
        if name in dir(self) or name.startswith('_'):
            super(Monad, self).__setattr__(name, value)
            self._sequence.append((name, value))

    def __lt__(self, value):
        Anonymous version of __setattr__
        self._sequence.append((None, value))

class Sequence(Monad):

    def __init__(self, *args, **kargs):
        super(Sequence, self).__init__(*args, **kargs)

    def __call__(self, *args, **kargs):
        for (name, callable) in self._sequence:
            result = callable(*args, **kargs)
            if name:
                self.__dict__[name] = result

class Maybe(Monad):

    def __init__(self, *args, **kargs):
        super(Maybe, self).__init__(*args, **kargs)

    def __call__(self, *args, **kargs):
        result = None
        for (name, callable) in self._sequence:
            result = callable(*args, **kargs)
            if result is None:
                return None
            if name:
                self.__dict__[name] = result
        return result

Re-reading the above, I see I have used a,b,c as variable names each time.
 I should probably just add that there's no special significance there -
you can use whatever you want: it's the order in which they are defined
that matters.


Undo Example

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:26:39 -0400 (CLT)

Here's an example of undo in action.  One advantage of the approach above
is that it's trivial to reverse the order of operations (necessary for
undo).  That would be trickier if we used nested lambdas.

class Add(Action):

    def __init__(self, n):
        super(Add, self).__init__(label='+%s' % n, n=n)

    def __call__(self, x, undo):
        undo < Subtract(self._n)
        x.value = x.value + self._n

class Subtract(Action):

    def __init__(self, n):
        super(Subtract, self).__init__(label='-%s' % n, n=n)

    def __call__(self, x, undo):
        undo < Add(self._n)
        x.value = x.value - self._n

class Multiply(Action):

    def __init__(self, n):
        super(Multiply, self).__init__(label='*%s' % n, n=n)

    def __call__(self, x, undo):
        undo < Divide(self._n)
        x.value = x.value * self._n

class Divide(Action):

    def __init__(self, n):
        super(Divide, self).__init__(label='/%s' % n, n=n)

    def __call__(self, x, undo):
        undo < Multiply(self._n)
        x.value = x.value / self._n

class Mutable(object):

    def __init__(self, value):
        self.value = value

class UndoTest(TestCase):

    def test_undo(self):
        u1 = Undo('undo initial operation')
        c = Composite('add 2 and multiply by 3')
        x = Mutable(0)
        c < Add(2)
        c < Multiply(3)
        c(x, u1)
        self.assertEqual(6, x.value)
        u2 = Undo('undo the undo')
        u1(x, u2)
        self.assertEqual(0, x.value)
        u2(x, Undo('unused'))
        self.assertEqual(6, x.value)

(note that add and multiply do not commute)



From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 11:02:12 -0400 (CLT)

Crap.  The above only works because I used lambda in the tests to make
them shorter (and whose body introduces a new scope which is lazily


From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:49:25 -0400 (CLT)

So what I finally end up doing here was using futures/thunks whatever you
want to call them.  The getattr on the "monad" returns a function which
must be evaluated to get the actual value.  The idea being that this
evaluation occurs after the evaluation of the action that will generate

Obviously that complicates the code because instead of just using values,
there are these special futures that need to be evaluated.  In the
particular use case I have here (see my later post on undo actions) I can
automate this, so that the code the user writes doesn't have to make the


Much Better via Co-Routines

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:58:36 -0400 (CLT)

Someone else did a much better job than me using co-routines.


Much Better via Co-Routines

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:58:36 -0400 (CLT)

Someone else did a much better job than me using co-routines.


Much Better via Co-Routines

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:58:36 -0400 (CLT)

Someone else did a much better job than me using co-routines.


Much Better via Co-Routines

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:58:36 -0400 (CLT)

Someone else did a much better job than me using co-routines.


Comment on this post