*A Template Haskell Adventure*

Oh no! Evil forces from the Intergalactic Federation for the Advancement of Finite Heterogeneous Data Structures of Length No More Than Sixty-Two have captured us! They want us to rewrite some basic list functions from Haskell’s Prelude to work on tuples instead of lists.

Begrudgingly, we learn the strange layouts of their alien keyboards (is that Colemak?!) and get to typing:

```
head (Unit x1) = x1
head (x1, x2) = x1
head (x1, x2, x3) = x1
head (x1, x2, x3, x4) = x1
head (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = x1
```

Luckily, we’ve remembered that `GHC.Tuple`

exports `Unit`

(defined as `data Unit = Unit a`

), so we don’t miss the `1`

case and anger our captors. It’s also nice that we don’t have to error out on an empty list, since we can just leave `head ()`

undefined. However, the work is very slow going. How many of these are we going to have to write? It seems tuples are defined up to length 62, which we can verify with ghci.

```
λ :t (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63)
<interactive>:1:1: error:
A 63-tuple is too large for GHC
(max size is 62)
Workaround: use nested tuples or define a data type
```

That’s a lot of tuple typing. After lengthy negotiations, we finally convince the Federation forces to let us use Template Haskell to reduce the amount of redundant boilerplate. We also decide to call Template Haskell “TH” to reduce the amount of redundant boilerplate.

Because TH bubbles up a stage restriction error otherwise, we know we’ll need a separate module to import from. Let’s name it after what we wish we had in this situation: `Helpers`

.

```
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
module Helpers where
import Language.Haskell.TH
import Control.Monad
```

Splices (which look like `$( ... )`

) will go in `Main.hs`

and everything else in `Helpers`

.

Now, let’s get back to defining `head`

. We want to be able to vary the tuple length across several functions, so we’ll take an `Int`

argument. Since we’re defining an expression, we’ll use the `Exp`

type.

`Exp`

gives us various options to choose from. We’re trying to build a function here, so let’s use `LamE`

, the lambda constructor. `LamE`

takes a list of patterns to match against, and an expression to run.

The expression is relatively straightforward. Assuming we name the first element of our tuples `x1`

, as above, we just need to pass back a single-variable expression. `VarE`

does this, taking a `Name`

. For now, let’s create that name via `mkName "x1"`

.

We still need the pattern match argument to `LamE`

. Just as we had `VarE`

construct an `x1`

variable expression, we can use `VarP`

to construct an `x1`

variable pattern match. Once we have our variable patterns from `x1`

to `xN`

, we can combine them with `TupP`

. Because it seems likely we’ll want to keep naming tuples, let’s build helper functions to do all this.

```
names :: Int -> Int -> [Name]
names a b = map (mkName . ('x':) . show) [a..b]
namedTupleP :: Int -> Pat
namedTupleP n = TupP . map VarP $ names 1 n
```

Then, we can test that `names`

properly builds names from `x1`

to `xN`

, and that `namedTupleP`

produces the equivalent of a `(x1, x2, x3...)`

pattern match in ghci.

```
λ names 1 10
[x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8,x9,x10]
λ namedTupleP 5
TupP [VarP x1,VarP x2,VarP x3,VarP x4,VarP x5]
```

Coming back to defining `headN`

, we now have a complete `Exp`

.

To actually use this, though, we’ll want to write a splice like `$(headN 3) (1, 2, 3)`

. These splices expect things wrapped up in the `Q`

monad, though. We could use `pure`

directly, as in `$(pure $ headN 3) (1, 2, 3)`

. Alternatively, we can alter the definition of `headN`

just a little a bit, and continue to use `$(headN 3) (1, 2, 3)`

.

The Federation representatives seem less angry than before, but are discussing something earnestly….

“Not good enough” is the verdict. Alien programmers don’t want to use such a…human-looking language, with strange `$(headN 3)`

syntax everywhere. They’d much rather call functions like `head3`

directly. For this, we need some code that uses code that writes code to write code.

We know `head`

is only viable on tuples of size 1 or greater, but there are other functions that might take a size-zero tuple `()`

, so let’s pass a `startingTupleSize`

argument. Passing a name prefix (the `head`

in `head3`

) lets us name our functions, and we have `headN :: Int -> Q Exp`

, to pass as the third argument. `rangeOverTuples`

gives us back a list of declarations—the functions `head1`

to `headN`

.

```
rangeOverTuples :: Int -> String -> (Int -> Q Exp) -> Q [Dec]
rangeOverTuples startingTupleSize funcName funcForTupleSize =
undefined
```

Usage of this will look like

To be able to see what code TH is actually generating, from now on we’ll dump splices via `ghc Main -ddump-splices`

. For now, let’s set `maxTupleSize`

to `5`

to keep dumped splices easier to read, with the intention of bumping it back up to 62 once we’re done fiddling with definitions.

We can begin to fill out the body of `rangeOverTuples`

by mapping over tuple sizes from the start to the max.

Grab the `Exp`

from our `funcForTupleSize :: Int -> Q Exp`

And also make a name, like `head5`

With these pieces in place, we can construct a function declaration with `FunD`

. It takes a `Name`

and a list of `Clause`

s. Looking at `Clause [Pat] Body [Dec]`

we see we can pass in a list of patterns, but we’ve actually already done that in `headN`

’s `LamE`

. To keep things simple, stick with the lambda’s pattern match for now. We also don’t have any extra declarations here, since the lambda does everything we need it to do. We do need a `Body`

. Because there are no guards, we can use `NormalB`

(rather than `GuardedB`

) and our existing `currentFunc`

.

Putting it all together, we get

```
rangeOverTuples :: Int -> String -> (Int -> Q Exp) -> Q [Dec]
rangeOverTuples startingTupleSize funcName funcForTupleSize =
forM [startingTupleSize..maxTupleSize] $ \tupleSize -> do
currentFunc <- funcForTupleSize tupleSize
let name = mkName $ funcName ++ show tupleSize
pure $ FunD name [Clause [] (NormalB currentFunc) []]
```

Now, when we splice this in:

…we get all the functions `head1`

through `head5`

in scope. After some tiny formatting liberties are taken, we can read the generated code fairly easily:

```
head1 = \ Unit x1 -> x1
head2 = \ (x1, x2) -> x1
head3 = \ (x1, x2, x3) -> x1
head4 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4) -> x1
head5 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) -> x1
```

We’ve built up quite the toolkit for replacing just one Prelude function! Let’s get started on a few more.

After `head`

, `tail`

is fairly natural. The trickiest part is that now instead of a single `VarE`

, we have to return a `TupE`

. We can hijack `names`

to get the correct list of names for this, but will need to write our own `tupleE`

.

`tupleE`

gets a list of names, turns them into `VarE`

, and turns the list into a tuple via `TupE`

. There’s really just one catch here, which is that `TupE`

acts on a list of `Maybe Exp`

as of TH 2.16.0, but acted directly on lists of `Exp`

before then. (It was changed to support tuple sections.)

If needed, we could use the CPP extension to conditionally support this behavior based on TH version. However, for simplicity, I’ll just assume we’re both on a recent enough version.

```
#if MIN_VERSION_template_haskell(2,16,0)
preTupE :: a -> Maybe a
preTupE = Just
#else
preTupE :: a -> a
preTupE = id
#endif
```

Like `head`

, `tail`

is partial on empty lists. So, we only generate `tailN`

where `N`

is 1 or greater. That’s all there is to it!

The generated code looks good to me:

```
tail1 = \ Unit x1 -> ()
tail2 = \ (x1, x2) -> Unit x2
tail3 = \ (x1, x2, x3) -> (x2, x3)
tail4 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4) -> (x2, x3, x4)
tail5 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) -> (x2, x3, x4, x5)
```

I’m going to take a minute to look around and see if there’s some way to escape this place. Do you mind writing `initN`

and `lastN`

?

Hey, I’m back. While I was looking around, some big ugly alien jailer came by and yelled at me in some language I could barely tell was a language, let alone decipher. I think we might be here a while. Do you mind if we work on something weirdly easy? Let’s write `lengthN`

.

It’s not quite as easy as `lengthN = n`

, but it’s really not too bad. Our function can totally ignore its argument, let’s just use a `_`

pattern match there. And, we can use `LitE`

to create some literal expression. Since we obviously have `n`

, just give back the integer literal form of `n`

.

`length`

can of course work on structures of length 0:

That’s actually kind of pretty.

```
length0 = \ _ -> 0
length1 = \ _ -> 1
length2 = \ _ -> 2
length3 = \ _ -> 3
length4 = \ _ -> 4
length5 = \ _ -> 5
```

I think we’re really getting the hang of things. After `length`

, `null`

should be a total breeze. If you want, you can write `nullN`

on your own. You’ll want to know `ConE`

, which helps you write constructors.

Didn’t you hear me? If you want, you can write `nullN`

on your own. You’ll want to know `ConE`

, which helps you write constructors.

That looks good, but I do have a suggestion. TH gives us multiple ways to create `Name`

s. So far, we’ve just been using `mkName`

, but we can also construct names directly based on what’s currently in scope. Use `''`

for types, and `'`

for values. For example, if I wanted to use `ConT`

, I could write `''Bool`

to get the name. If you like, take a look at the docs for more explanation.

Because `True`

and `False`

are values, and they’re in scope, we can get those names with a single tick `'`

```
nullN :: Int -> Q Exp
nullN n =
pure . LamE [namedTupleP n] . ConE $
if n == 0
then 'True
else 'False
```

It looks like `nullN`

works

```
null0 = \ () -> True
null1 = \ Unitx1 -> False
null2 = \ (x1, x2) -> False
null3 = \ (x1, x2, x3) -> False
null4 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4) -> False
null5 = \ (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) -> False
```

An alien steps in and informs us that we only have to write one more function! Additionally, because tuples can have different types in different slots, we’re now allowed to assume homogenously typed tuples (`t2 :: (a, a)`

, `t3 :: (a, a, a)`

, etc.). The last function we need to come up with is `mapN`

. It would be possible to build a `multimap`

that maps different functions over different types, but we’re only here to replace functions on lists.

As ever, let’s start with the basics

Peeking at the list definition `map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]`

shows us we now have two arguments. Let’s call the first one (the function) `f`

:

We still have `namedTupleP n`

as part of our pattern match, but we also want to grab `f`

there as well. The overall pattern match will look something like `f (x1, x2, x3)`

in the end.

The `Exp`

way to apply some expression to another is `AppE`

. We can use this to actually apply `f`

to each of the `x`

s.

Then, we construct a new tuple with the function applied to each element.

Putting it all together…

```
mapN :: Int -> Q Exp
mapN n = do
let f = mkName "f"
args = [VarP f, namedTupleP n]
applyFunc x = AppE (VarE f) (VarE x)
pure $ LamE args $ TupE . map (Just . applyFunc) $ names 1 n
```

The generated code looks like it does what was expected

```
map0 = \ f () -> ()
map1 = \ f Unitx1 -> Unit f x1
map2 = \ f (x1, x2) -> (f x1, f x2)
map3 = \ f (x1, x2, x3) -> (f x1, f x2, f x3)
map4 = \ f (x1, x2, x3, x4) -> (f x1, f x2, f x3, f x4)
map5 = \ f (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) -> (f x1, f x2, f x3, f x4, f x5)
```

Satisfied, we set `maxTupleSize`

back to `62`

.

The jailer returns, swinging open the creaky door of our oddly comfortable coding cell. As we exit the hallway, starshine streams in through a large window. We board a nondescript craft and return to earth, satisfied with the job we’ve done, but somewhat more worried about the fate of humanity.

On the way back we discuss what a silly, contrived, ridiculous thing it is to want a Tuple Prelude. In the end though, whether using recursion to operate on a list, or using TH metaprogramming to generate functions on tuples, it’s all just ranging over data structures. There’s a sort of beautiful simplicity to this deep connectedness of alien and human programming styles, even with very different surfaces.

In the interest of furthering human-alien relations, it might be worthwhile to convert a few more functions. Potentially interesting ones include:

`(!!)`

`foldr`

`(++)`

In the last case, you’re combining pairs of two tuple sizes, so you’ll need to do more work than just mapping over tuple sizes once.

Aliens might also appreciate more thorough use of `FunD`

rather than `LamE`

everywhere.

As we disembark, I promise you I’ll put everything we’ve learned in a github repo for easier reference.