Is it possible to make a function so that a Proxy from pipes can be constructed inside-out? By inside-out, I mean create a proxy from a function that connects the upstream and downstream connections. The most desirable (but impossible) signature would be
makeProxy :: (Monad m) =>
(Server a' a m r -> Client b' b m r -> Effect m r) ->
Proxy a' a b' b m r
The first problem we encounter is the mechanical problem of constructing the Proxy. There's no way for us to know if the function looks at the Server or Client except by having each of them be M, in which case we'll only know which one it looked at, not what value it tried to send upstream or downstream. If we focus on the upstream end, the only thing we know is that something tried to figure out what the upstream proxy is, so we need to decide on either always resulting in a Request farther upstream or Responding. Either way we answer, the only value we can provide is (). This means we can make a Request () to an upstream producer or Respond () immediately. If we consider making this choice for both ends, there are only four possible functions. The following functions are named after whether their upstream and downstream connections send interesting data downstream (D) or upstream (U).
betweenDD :: (Monad m) =>
(Server () a m r -> Client () b m r -> Effect m r) ->
Proxy () a () b m r
betweenDD = undefined
betweenDU :: (Monad m) =>
(Server () a m r -> Client b' () m r -> Effect m r) ->
Proxy () a b' () m r
betweenDU = undefined
betweenUU :: (Monad m) =>
(Server a' () m r -> Client b' () m r -> Effect m r) ->
Proxy a' () b' () m r
betweenUU f = reflect (betweenDD g)
where g source sink = f (reflect sink) (reflect source)
betweenUD :: (Monad m) =>
(Server a' () m r -> Client () b m r -> Effect m r) ->
Proxy a' () () b m r
betweenUD = undefined
betweenDD is the most interesting, it would build a pipe between a Producer and a Consumer; betweenUU would do the same for a pipe running upstream. betweenDU would consume data requesting it from one of two sources. betweenUD would produce data, sending it to one of two destinations.
Can we provide a definition for betweenDD? If not, can we instead provide definitions for the following simpler functions?
belowD :: (Monad m) =>
(Producer a m r -> Producer b m r) ->
Proxy () a () b m r
aboveD :: (Monad m) =>
(Consumer b m r -> Consumer a m r) ->
Proxy () a () b m r
This question was motivated by trying to write belowD to use in answering a question about P.zipWith.
Example
This example happens to be essentially the question that inspired this question..
Let's say we want to create a Pipe that will number the values passing through it. The Pipe will have values a coming downstream from above and values (n, a) leaving downstream below; in other words it will be a Pipe a (n, a).
We'll solve this problem by zipping with the numbers. The result of ziping with the numbers is a function (->) from a Producer a to a Producer (n, a).
import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P
number' :: (Monad m, Num n, Enum n) => Producer a m () -> Producer (n, a) m ()
number' = P.zip (fromList [1..])
Even though the Pipe will consume as from upstream, from the point of view of the function it needs a Producer of as to provide those values. If we had a definition for belowD we could write
number :: (Monad m, Num n, Enum n) => Pipe a (n, a) m ()
number = belowD (P.zip (fromList [1..]))
given a suitable definition for fromList
fromList :: (Monad m) => [a] -> Producer a m ()
fromList [] = return ()
fromList (x:xs) = do
yield x
fromList xs
Actually, I think
makeProxyis possible if you slightly change the type. I am on my phone so I cannot type check this just yet, but I believe this works:This assumes that
kis defined as:Edit: Yeah, it works if you add an import for
liftI'll walk through why this works.
First, let me set out some of the
pipesdefinitions and laws:Now let's use those equations to expand out
upanddn:In other words,
upconverts allrequests going out ofk's upstream interface intolift . requestanddnconverts allresponds going out ofk's downstream interface intolift . respond. In fact, we can prove that:... and if we apply those equations to
k, we get:This says the same thing except more directly: we're replacing every
requestinkwithlift . requestand replacing everyrespondinkwithlift . respond.Once we lower all
requests andresponds to the base monad, we end up with this type:Now we can delete the outer
EffectusingrunEffect. This leaves behind the "inside-out"Proxy.This is also the same trick that
Pipes.Lift.distributeuses to swap the order of theProxymonad with the monad underneath it:http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes-4.1.4/docs/src/Pipes-Lift.html#distribute