Experimenting around Functorial pattern in Rust

This repository aims at exploring the followings in Rust:

• Affine Data/Control Functor hierarchy
• Multiplicative Functor hierarchy
• A port of QualifiedDo in Haskell to Rust macro to use the above uniformly
  • Support ApplicativeDo and MonadFail as well.

Showcase

use functo_rs::control::*;
use qualified_do::*;

let ans: Option<i64> = qdo! {Optioned {
    i <- Some(5);
    j <- Some(6);
    let k = 7i64;
    return i + j + k
}};
assert_eq!(ans, Some(18));

use functo_rs::control::*;
use qualified_do::*;

let ans: Option<i64> = qdo! {Optioned {
    i <- Some(5);
    j <- Some(6);
    _k <- None::<i64>;
    let k = 7i64;
    return i + j + k
}};
assert_eq!(ans, None);

use functo_rs::nonlinear::*;
use qualified_do_macro::qdo;
let is = vec![1, 2, 3];
let js = vec![4, 5, 6];

let ans: Vec<i64> = qdo! {UndetVec {
    i <- is.clone();
    j <- js.clone();
    let k = 100i64;
    UndetVec::guard(i % 2 == 1);
    return i + j + k
}};
assert_eq!(
    ans,
    is.into_iter()
        .flat_map(|i| js.iter().cloned().flat_map(move |j| if i % 2 == 1 {
            Some(i + j + 100)
        } else {
            None
        }))
        .collect::<Vec<_>>()
);

use functo_rs::data::*;
use qualified_do_macro::qdo;
let is = vec![1, 2, 3];
let js = vec![4, 5, 6];

let ans: Vec<i64> = qdo! {ZipVec {
    i <- is.clone();
    j <- js.clone();
    let k = 100i64;
    return i + j + k
}};
assert_eq!(
    ans,
    is.into_iter()
        .zip(js)
        .map(|(i, j)| i + j + 100)
        .collect::<Vec<_>>()
);

use either::Either::*;
let a = vec![Some(1), None, Some(3)];
let b = vec![Left(4), Left(5), Right(6)];
let answer = {
    let a = a.clone();
    let b = b.clone();
    qdo! { Iter {
        Some(x) <- a;
        Left(y) <- b.clone();
        let z = 100i64;
        return x + y + z
    }}
    .collect::<Vec<_>>()
};
let c = a
    .into_iter()
    .flatten()
    .flat_map(|x| {
        b.iter()
            .cloned()
            .flat_map(|x| x.left())
            .map(move |y| x + y + 100)
    })
    .collect::<Vec<_>>();
assert_eq!(answer, c);

fn gen_expr() -> impl Strategy<Value = Expr> {
    use qualified_do::qdo;
    let leaf = any::<i32>().prop_map(Expr::Num).boxed();
    leaf.prop_recursive(8, 256, 10, |inner| {
        prop_oneof![
            qdo! { BoxedProptest {
                l <- inner.clone();
                r <- inner.clone();
                return Expr::Add(l.into(), r.into())
            }},
            qdo! { BoxedProptest {
                l <- inner.clone();
                r <- inner.clone();
                return Expr::Mul(l.into(), r.into())
            }}
        ]
    })
}

Syntax

The qdo macro has the following syntax:

qdo!{ NAMESPACE {
  stmt1;
  stmt2;
  ...
  last_stmt [;] // Last ; is optional and changes the return value
}}

• NAMESPACE: module or type path to qualify control functions.
• stmts are do-statement, which should be one of the followings:

  • let pat = expr;: let-statement for (non-effectful) local binding.

  • return a: which wraps (pure) value a into effectful context;

    • NOTE: This DOES NOT do any early return. It is interpreted as just a syntactic sugar around NAMESPACE::pure(a).

  • [~]pat <- expr: effectful local binding. Corresponding roughly to NAMESPACE::and_then

    • ~ is omittable; if ~ is specified, it tries to desugar into simple closure on infalliable pattern.

  • guard expr: guarding expression. Filters out expr is false. Desugared into NAMESPACE::guard(expr).

  • expr: effectful expression, with its result discarded.

• last_stmt MUST either be return expr or expr.
  • If there is no ; atfter last_stmt, the final effectful value(s) will be returned.
  • If last_stmt is followed by ;, the values are discarded and replaced with () inside effectful context.

If pat is just a single identifier, it is desugared to a simple closure. If the pat is falliable pattern, it desugars into closure with match-expression, with default value calls NAMESPACE::fail to report pattern-match failure.

Further more, if the following conditions are met, qdo-expression will be desugared in ApplicativeDo-mode, which desugars in terms of NAMESPACE::fmap, NAMESPACE::zip_with, and possibly NAMESPACE::pure:

1. All stmts but last_stmt contains NO varibale bound in qdo-context,
2. All binding patterns are identifiers, not a compound pattern,
3. No guard condition in stmtN contains identifiers defined in qdo-context, and
4. The last_stmt is of form return expr, where expr can refer to any identifier in scope including those bound in qdo.

In ApplicativeDo mode, all binding can be chained independently so they are chained with NAMESPACE::zip_with and finally mapped with fmap[^1].

[^1]: In Haskell, ApplicativeDo uses fmap, ap, and join. The reason we don't use join is that join needs nested container, which has less availability in Rust than Haskell.

ApplicativeDo utilises the independence of each binding, so in some cases you need less clone()s.