Consistent vocabulary in control flow

Mainstream programming languages provide various constructs for control flow: conditionals, loops, exceptions, etc. Many of these can be modeled using the general functor concept. In this post I'm going to show you how.

In most programming languages defining a function (or a method, subroutine, procedure, etc.) is simple. Using this function in a real program is more complex: the function's arguments may be missing (None, NULL, nil, etc.), the computation in the function may fail because of an unexpected condition, the function's input argument may be the result of an asynchronous call.

In a real program a function call appears in a specific context with a particular control flow. In a given context specific edge cases appear which we must handle as well.

In the next sections I show you how a simple function is typically used in different contexts. I'm using examples written in Python and Haskell.

Modeling a camera

As a working example, let's model a camera with a projection from a three-dimensional world point coordinates to two-dimensional image point coordinates.

In Haskell the type signature of such a function is:

project :: WorldPoint -> ImagePoint

where I assume that some reasonable definitions of WorldPoint and ImagePoint exist. That is, given a world point project returns a point on the camera's image plane.

In Python the outline of this function would read:

def project(world_point):
   return image_point

The concrete implementation of project is not important. For the sake of this article we can assume that all relevant camera parameters are available in the function's body.

Let's see how we could use the project function in various contexts.

Simplest case

We designed our function to be pure, free of side-effects. Projecting a single world point is just a matter of calling project. It's easy both in Python


and Haskell:

project worldPoint

In a real world program, however, the situation is rarely that simple.

Missing value

Imagine that a preceding computation provides an empty world point to our program. We would like to use project in this context where the world point may not be present.

In Python, the missing value could be represented as a None value. Let's use a conditional to check for it:

if world_point:
    image_point = project(world_point)
    # use image_point
    # handle the missing value

This is a common pattern, you find such conditionals in every code base.

In Haskell we could accept the world point wrapped in a Maybe type and use fmap to compute a projection in case the world point value is present:

let maybeImagePoint = fmap project maybeWorldPoint

where the type of the input and output values are Maybe WorldPoint and Maybe ImagePoint, respectively.

This works, because Maybe is a functor. This means we can use the function fmap to lift our pure project function to operate on potentially missing values.

Handling a scene

We rarely work with a single world point, but with a collection of world points which I call here a scene.

If we wanted to project an entire scene on a camera, in Python we could use a list comprehension and write:

image_points = [project(world_point) for world_point in scene]

or more succinctly, using the built-in map function:

image_points = list(map(project, scene))

In Python 3, map returns an iterator which we explicitly convert to a list.

In Haskell, choosing a simple list representation for Scene, we write:

-- type Scene = [WorldPoint]
let imagePoints = fmap project scene

where the type of imagePoints is a list of image points.

This is almost identical to the Python code using map. List is a functor, fmap on list applies the provided function on each element. This is exactly map as we know it from Python.

Input from a data file

Let's imagine that the world point is stored on disk in a data file. Before we can apply project we need to read and decode the data file.

In Python, we wrap the file operation in a try-except block:

   world_point = read_data_file(...)
   image_point = project(world_point)
except (DecodeError e):
   # handle the error

This is also fairly common pattern: the exception handler, if we don't forget to write it, allows us to handle the potential errors.

In Haskell, it's again just fmap:

-- worldPointOrError :: Either WorldPoint DecodeError
-- imagePointOrError :: Either ImagePoint DecodeError
let imagePointOrError = fmap project worldPointOrError

Here Either WorldPoint is the functor and fmap acts as follows: if the decoding is successful project is applied on the returned value. In case of error the project function is not used at all and imagePointOfError will contain the returned error value.

Because the potential failure is encoded in the data type we cannot forget about error handling: that code would just not compile.

Asynchronous request

Finally let's assume that we read the world point from the network. Network communication requires a lot of input/output so let's do it concurrently with other tasks of our application.

In Python, using the asyncio library we can write concurrent code using the async/await syntax:

async def read_from_network():                  # ①
    await asyncio.sleep(1)
    return (0, 1, 2)  # dummy value

async def async_image_point():                  # ②
    return project(await read_from_network())

image_point =  # ③
  1. read_from_network is a coroutine simulating an asynchronous action obtaining the world point. In a real application this operation would run concurrently with other coroutines.

  2. async_image_point applies the projection on the value returned by read_from_network. This is also a coroutine and it completes after the network communication has finished.

  3. blocks until the provided coroutine delivers its return value. image_point is now a regular image point value.

Now let's see how something similar works in Haskell:

readFromNetwork :: IO WorldPoint            -- ①
readFromNetwork = do
  threadDelay 1000000 -- µs
  return (0, 1, 2)    -- dummy value

imagePoint :: IO ImagePoint
imagePoint = do
  worldPoint <- async readFromNetwork      -- ②
  wait (fmap project worldPoint)           -- ③
  1. readFromNetwork simulates the network IO: the body of this function can be replaced with calls to a real networking library which do not know anything about asynchronous operations.

  2. Spawn the network operation asynchronously in a separate (lightweight) thread. Note that async is just a library function, not a special keyword.

  3. We use fmap to lift the transformation into the asynchronous computation, then wait blocks until the asynchronous action completes.

By looking at the type signature of fmap specialized to this example:

fmap :: (WorldPoint -> ImagePoint) -> Async WorldPoint -> Async ImagePoint

We can see that fmap constructs a new asynchronous action where the provided function is applied to the result of the provided asynchronous action. It reaches under the Async constructor and transforms the underlying values.


We looked at how a pure function is used in four different computational contexts: missing values, collections, potentially failing and asynchronous actions.

In Python we used different, specialized language constructs to apply our project function:

In Haskell we always used fmap, because these seemingly different computations can all be modeled as a functor. Instead of using special language keywords we used one organizing principle borrowed from Mathematics where the control flow and the edge cases are precisely defined.

You can read more about functors on the Haskell wiki or elsewhere on the Internet.

For the topic I took inspiration from the talk The Human Side of Haskell by Josh Godsiff.