Fl4m3Ph03n1x
Option type compatible with comprehensions in Elixr?
Background
I am trying to up my Functional Programming (FP) skills and one of the things that newcomers first learn in FP is the Option Type (aka, Maybe Monad).
Option what?
This construct is present in many languages, Haskell has Maybe and Java and Python (yes, Python!) have Optional.
Basically this type models a value that may or may not be there.
How it all comes down to Elixir
Most FP languages have comprehensions, Scala and Elixir have the for construct while Haskell has its famous do notation.
In Scala and Haskell, these comprehensions work not only with Enumerables (such as Lists) but also with our Option type (which is not an enumerable).
I mention this, because according to my understanding, Elixir’s comprehensions only works on Enumerables. Furthermore, as far as I know, there is not Option type datastructure in Elixir.
What does Elixir have?
Elixir has tagged tuples in the form of {:ok, val} or {:error, reason}. Now while Elixir comprehensions can pattern match with tagged tuples:
iex> values = [good: 1, good: 2, bad: 3, good: 4]
iex> for {:good, n} <- values, do: n * n
[1, 4, 16]
It also ignores values that do not pattern match:
iex> values = [good: 1, good: 2, bad: 3, good: 4]
iex> for {:bananas, n} <- values, do: n * n
[]
However, this does not replicate the behaviour of the Option type correctly. Following is an example in Scala:
for {
validName <- validateName(name)
validEnd <- validateEnd(end)
validStart <- validateStart(start, end)
} yield Event(validName, validStart, validEnd)
Having in mind this signatures:
def validateName(name: String): Option[String]
def validateEnd(end: Int): Option[Int]
def validateStart(start: Int, end: Int): Option[Int]
The result of the full comprehension expression, should any function return None , will be None.
With Elixir, the bad result would be ignored and the pipeline would simply continue happily ever after.
Questions
At this point I am thinking that implement this Option type as a structure that implements the Enumerable Protocol (so it can be used in Elixir comprehensions) is something that should be possible.
However, I am not sure I want to go down that route if I can simulate similar behavior using tuples.
So I have the following questions:
- Is it possible to simulate the
Optiontype using tagged tuples inside Elixir comprehensions? - Are there any Elixir libraries in the wild that have Monadic types (like the one we saw here) usable within Elixir comprehensions? (I know about witchcraft but they have their own construct for comprehensions, which for the time being, I think is a little overkill. I am interesting in something that works with Elixir’s native comprehension functionality).
Marked As Solved
Fl4m3Ph03n1x
Answer
After searching for all the functional libraries Elixir has on hex, at the time of this writing none matched my main requirement:
- Being usable with Elixir comprehensions.
Some say Elixir comprehensions are not powerful enough for such cases. This is a falsifiable claim, so I decided to go ahead and try to falsify it.
Say Hi to Option.ex
Yes, the name is not inspiring. Originality has never been my forté.
But what is this?
Simply put, this is an option type for elixir, aka, Option/Maybe monad. Yes, another one.
And just like what most people coming from languages like Scala/Haskell/Python have come to know, it has a couple of subtypes Some and None.
option.ex
defmodule Option do
@type t(elem) :: __MODULE__.Some.t(elem) | __MODULE__.None.t()
defmodule Some do
@type t(elem) :: %__MODULE__{val: elem}
defstruct [:val]
defimpl Collectable do
@impl Collectable
def into(option), do: {option, fn acc, _command -> {:done, acc} end}
end
defimpl Enumerable do
@impl Enumerable
def count(_some), do: {:ok, 1}
@impl Enumerable
def member?(some, element), do: {:ok, some.val == element}
@impl Enumerable
def reduce(some, acc, fun)
def reduce(_some, {:halt, acc}, _fun), do: {:halted, acc}
def reduce(some, {:suspend, acc}, fun), do: {:suspended, acc, &reduce(some, &1, fun)}
def reduce([], {:cont, acc}, _fun), do: {:done, acc}
def reduce(%Option.Some{} = some, {:cont, acc}, fun),
do: reduce([], fun.(some.val, acc), fun)
@impl Enumerable
def slice(_option), do: {:error, __MODULE__}
end
end
defmodule None do
@type t :: %__MODULE__{}
defstruct []
defimpl Collectable do
@impl Collectable
def into(option) do
{option,
fn
_acc, {:cont, val} ->
%Option.Some{val: val}
acc, :done ->
acc
_acc, :halt ->
:ok
end}
end
end
defimpl Enumerable do
@impl Enumerable
def count(_none), do: {:error, __MODULE__}
@impl Enumerable
def member?(_none, _element), do: {:error, __MODULE__}
@impl Enumerable
def reduce(none, acc, fun)
def reduce(_none, {:cont, acc}, _fun), do: {:done, acc}
def reduce(_none, {:halt, acc}, _fun), do: {:halted, acc}
def reduce(none, {:suspend, acc}, fun), do: {:suspended, acc, &reduce(none, &1, fun)}
@impl Enumerable
def slice(_option), do: {:error, __MODULE__}
end
end
@spec new(any) :: __MODULE__.Some.t(any)
def new(val), do: %__MODULE__.Some{val: val}
@spec new :: __MODULE__.None.t()
def new, do: %__MODULE__.None{}
end
This works with Elixir comprehensions, and it makes use of the fact that the Optional type is a Functor. This means its main requirement is being able to be mapped over. By converting an abstract container into specific implementation detail (like lists in Elixir) I was able to make it work.
How can I use it?
The main purpose of this was to add an Option type to elixir to use with comprehensions. So a comparison to other languages is useful:
In Scala:
def parseShow(rawShow: String): Option[TvShow] = {
for {
name <- extractName(rawShow)
yearStart <- extractYearStart(rawShow)
yearEnd <- extractYearEnd(rawShow)
} yield TvShow(name, yearEnd, yearStart)
}
In Elixir:
@spec parse_show(String.t()) :: Option.t(TvShow.t())
def parse_show(raw_show) do
for name <- extract_name(raw_show),
year_start <- extract_year_start(raw_show),
year_end <- extract_year_end(raw_show),
into: Option.new() do
%TvShow{name: name, year_end: year_end, year_start: year_start}
end
end
You will see, these two pieces of code are basically identical, with the exception of the line into: Option.new(), which is implicit in the Scala example. Elixir requires it to be explicit, which I personally prefer as well.
I could go on with examples from other languages, but they would all read basically the same. This is because comprehensions are basically the same in most FP languages.
But this doesn’t answer the full original post …
What about an Elixir equivalent in tagged tuples?
You can’t use tagged tuples to achieve the same thing using comprehensions. This is impossible.
However, if we discard comprehensions and focus on Elixir’s other constructs, we can come a little bit closer.
Quoting another prominent member of our community, @OvermindDL1 :
Is it possible to simulate the
Optiontype using tagged tuples inside Elixir comprehensions?Yes, or with
withif you want an else, but you’ll want to make the tagged typed beok: valueanderror: reason(which is closer to a result type, but it’s a limitation of elixir tuple lists in that they are always tuples). Traditionally{:ok, value}and:erroris the “option” type in Elixir, where{:ok, value}and{:error, reason}is the “result” type in Elixir.
So, if you are coming from a different setting, from a functional language into Elixir, this post and my option.ex is most certainly going to help you.
If however, you’d rather stay away from Mathematical Categories and other functional concepts like you want to stay away from the plague, with statements with other elixir’s constructs ought to serve you well enough.
One is not better than the other, they have different costs/benefits. It’s up to you.
Also Liked
al2o3cr
Instead of trying to force H-M types into tagged tuples (which they fit most of the time, but not always), what about using a type that already plays nice with Enumerable: a single-element list?
Some(A)is then represented by[A]Noneis represented by[]
LostKobrakai
I’m personally not a big fan of how monads are always tought boundled with their specific syntax in language XY. Many monads would be considered way less magicy if people actually tought the idea unrelated to syntax, because as you said a option monad in elixir is usually just a {:ok, term} | {:error, term} tuple, but handled with a bunch of explicit case statements. You can see similarities between Functors and Enum.map.
Generally if you want to have for work with “maybe” in elixir I’d just do this:
for result <- list do
case result do
{:ok, x} -> handle_x(x)
err -> err
end
end
gregvaughn
At risk of going off on a tangent, let me point out that the type system of Erlang (and BEAM) pre-date Scala/F#/Haskell. It was developed in industry, not academia. The creators did not set out to create a functional language, but it happened to meet their requirements best, so that’s what we got.
I’m impressed with the levels of static typing people have been able to achieve, but at a fundamental level there will be mismatches with BEAM-level types because the language designers made different design tradeoffs originally.
This doesn’t help with your specific question(s), but perhaps it will help to moderate your expectations of what is possible/practical and when to expect compromises.
ouven
Hi, I have strong Scala background, but I never missed the for comprehensions or the option type.
Instead I use more pattern matching to solve those problems. So a Scala for comprehension with multiple generators becomes a with statement in my elixir solution space.
al2o3cr
Some trivial macros can tidy this up a little, if you’re so inclined:
defmodule Blargh do
defmacro some(x), do: [x]
defmacro none(), do: []
end
defmodule BlarghTest do
import Blargh
def foo(x) do
case x do
some(value) -> some(2*value)
none() -> none()
end
end
end









