## Short-circuiting

View literate file on Github

Short-circuiting in imperative languages is a doddle – just put a break; to get out of a loop. Having said that, things are trickier when you want to break out into various levels within nested loops. Gabriel Gonzalez, here, explains how short-circuiting is easy in Haskell and moreover short-circuiting didn’t have to be built into Haskell to achieve it. Have a read through it before continuing.

What do I need to write this post for then? If you’ve been following any of the previous posts you’ll note a persistent performance-harping theme. This will be a concern here too but only after I explore a general solution for jumping out of nested loops with great ease. After which you can go off and work out solutions in other languages or even come up with another solution in Haskell.

## A quick review of short-circuiting

> {-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
> module Main (main) where
>
> import Debug.Trace
> import Criterion.Main
> import Data.List
> import Data.Array.ST
> import Data.Array.Base (unsafeWrite)
> import Data.STRef


Suppose we have a simple loop to sum up values in a list

> sum' :: [Double] -> Double
> sum' = foldl' (+) 0


and we decide to conduct this summation only while the sum remains below $n$, we can write it idiomatically as Gabriel suggests using EitherT

> -- | just adding a strict fold
> foldM'             :: Monad m => (a -> b -> m a) -> a -> [b] -> m a
> foldM' _ !a []      =  return a
> foldM' f !a (x:xs)  =  f a x >>= \fax -> foldM' f fax xs
>
> sumEither :: Double -> [Double] -> Double
> sumEither n = either id id . runIdentity . runEitherT .
>     foldM' (\acc x -> let acc' = acc+x
>                       in if acc' > n then left acc
>                          else return acc') 0


You can see that the change is quite minimal and, more importantly, retains the fold abstraction. As mentioned in Gabriel’s post, using the continuation monad just for this simple shorting is unnecessary – although, it is just as simple.

> sumCont :: Double -> [Double] -> Double
> sumCont n xs = flip runCont id . callCC $\exit -> > foldM' (\acc x -> let acc' = acc+x > in if acc' > n then exit acc > else return acc') 0 xs  ghci> sum' [1..100] 5050.0 ghci> sumEither 100 [1..100] 91.0 ghci> sumCont 100 [1..100] 91.0  Even with a great face, there is always a “but(t)”. The following benchmark shows why. > bill = 1000000000 > benchSum = [ bench "prim"$ nf (sumPrim bill) [1..bill]
>            , bench "eitherPrim" $nf (sumEitherPrim bill) [1..bill] > , bench "either"$ nf (sumEither bill) [1..bill]
>            , bench "cont" $nf (sumCont bill) [1..bill] > ] > > sumPrim :: Double -> [Double] -> Double > sumPrim n = loop 0 > where loop !acc (x:xs) = let acc' = acc+x > in if acc' > n then acc > else loop acc' xs > loop acc [] = acc > > -- at the cost of avoiding the fold abstraction > sumEitherPrim :: Double -> [Double] -> Double > sumEitherPrim n xs = either id id . runIdentity . runEitherT$
>     let loop !acc (x:xs) = let acc' = acc+x
>                            in if acc' > n then left acc
>                               else loop (acc+x) xs
>         loop acc [] = return acc
>     in loop 0 xs

benchmarking prim
mean: 657.3056 us, lb 650.1865 us, ub 670.2494 us, ci 0.950

benchmarking eitherPrim
mean: 692.7036 us, lb 685.9469 us, ub 703.1273 us, ci 0.950

benchmarking either
mean: 1.378055 ms, lb 1.368699 ms, ub 1.392701 ms, ci 0.950

benchmarking cont
mean: 4.097969 ms, lb 4.090660 ms, ub 4.108388 ms, ci 0.950

The good news is that using EitherT is faster than using ContT and is only acceptably slower than shortPrim. The bad news is the difference between sumEither and sumEitherPrim due to the overloading of foldM'. I’ll save the discussion and solution of this problem for another post.

## Shorting out of dynamic nesting

What if we had to deal with jumping out of nested loops where new nesting is created dynamically. This is not as unrealistic as it sounds because everyone has heard of dynamic nesting in the form of the nesting of function calls where the caller invokes a function which goes on top of the stack and then unwinds one step at a time. Now consider slightly generalizing it where we may directly unwind to anyone in the stack and not just the immediate ancestor.

Here is a general simulation of it as a game played on a tree. You start at the first child of the root. Let’s call it level 1 and

1. traverse children from left to right of level $k$
2. at each child an oracle $O(k)$ either directs you to the first child of the current node or sends you back to the node at one of level $j that you came from where you continue the left-right traversal from the child you returned to.
3. you play this game till you reach the last level $n$ and report the route taken (if any).

I declare a simple concrete version of this game where

1. Each node is an integer
2. $O(k)(x) = x \text{ mod } k$ where $0$ means goto the first child and otherwise go $x \text{ mod } k$ levels back

The tree itself is dynamically defined by a list [[Int]] where children are determined by multiplying itself with the parent. For example, the list [[1,2],[1,4]] and the list [[1,3],[3,5]] defines the trees Example

where the solution on the left is the route given by second child in level 1 and the first child in level 2 while the second tree has no solution.

Coding this with an EitherT stack will require programming with dependent types because the stack depends on the depth you are at: EitherT b m a at the first level and EitherT b1 (EitherT b2 m) a at the next. So, we can solve it with continuations instead.

> shortCont :: [[Int]] -> Maybe [Int]
> shortCont xss = runST $do > v <- newArray (0,length xss) 0 :: ST s (STUArray s Int Int) > flip runContT return$ loop v 1 xss []
>   xs <- getElems v
>   return $if head xs == 1 then Just (tail xs) else Nothing > where loop _ d [] _ = return () > loop v d (xs:xss) lbls = void . callCC$ \lbl -> forM_ (zip [1..] xs) $\(idx,i) -> do > let rem = i mod d > lbls' = lbl:lbls > if rem == 0 > then lift (unsafeWrite v d idx) >> > when (null xss) ( lift (unsafeWrite v 0 1) >> > (last lbls'$ ())
>                                    )
>               else let goto = lbls' !! (rem-1)
>                    in goto ()
>             loop v (d+1) (map (map (i*)) xss) lbls'

ghci> shortCont [[1,2],[1,4]]
Just [2,1]

ghci> shortCont [[1,3],[3,5]]
Nothing


But keeping track of the callCC labels is cumbersome and error-prone. EitherT would be great if the transformer stack didn’t have to change. Well, let’s write a new monad to make this happen. I’ll leave you to work out how it works from the code (it’s simple and I can avoid making this post any longer!).

> newtype SC b m a = SC { runSC :: Int -> m (Either (Int,b) a,Int)}
>
> -- works just like EitherT but keeps track of
> -- the depth with an integer state
>   return a = SC $\s -> return (Right a,s) > {-# INLINE return #-} > m >>= f = SC$ \s -> do
>                   (a',s') <- runSC m s
>                   case a' of
>                     Right r -> runSC (f r) s'
>                     Left (i,l)  -> return (Left (i,l),s')
>   {-# INLINE (>>=) #-}
>
> instance MonadTrans (SC e) where
>   lift m = SC $\s -> m >>= \x -> return (Right x,s) > {-# INLINE lift #-} > > -- function to exit to a particular level > exit :: Monad m => Int -> b -> SC b m a > exit i b = SC$ \s -> return (Left (i,b),s)
> {-# INLINE exit #-}
>
> -- function to initiate a new exit context
> -- the new context is at current level + 1
> lvl :: Monad m => SC b m a -> SC b m (Either b a)
> lvl m = SC $\s -> do > (a,_) <- runSC m (s+1) > case a of > Right r -> return (Right (Right r),s) > Left (i,l) -> if s >= i > then return (Left (i,l),s) > else return (Right (Left l),s)  Now for the solution in this new monad. > short :: [[Int]] -> Maybe [Int] > short xss = runST$ do
>   v <- newArray (0,length xss) 0 :: ST s (STUArray s Int Int)
>   flip runSC 0 $loop v 1 xss > xs <- getElems v > return$ if head xs == 1 then Just (tail xs) else Nothing
>     where loop _ d [] = return ()
>           loop v d (xs:xss) = (>> return ()) . lvl . forM_ (zip [1..] xs) $\(idx,i) -> do > let rem = i mod d > if rem == 0 > then lift (unsafeWrite v d idx) >> > when (null xss) ( lift (unsafeWrite v 0 1) >> > exit 0 () > ) > else exit (rem+1) () > loop v (d+1) (map (map (i*)) xss)  ghci> short [[1,2],[1,4]] Just [2,1] ghci> short [[1,3],[3,5]] Nothing ghci> short (replicate 10 [1..10]) Nothing  Not bad huh? Here’s a benchmark. Sometime later, I’ll make a package of it and upload it to Hackage unless you, the reader, would like to do it if you find this useful (just give me a shout). > main = defaultMain > [ bench "short"$ nf short (replicate 10 [1..10])
>      , bench "shortCont" \$ nf shortCont (replicate 10 [1..10])
>      ]

benchmarking short
mean: 10.09475 us, lb 10.08404 us, ub 10.11061 us, ci 0.950

benchmarking shortCont
mean: 22.25052 us, lb 22.23272 us, ub 22.27561 us, ci 0.950
This entry was posted in Haskell and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.