# An Existential Crisis

We're slowly making progress towards being able to procedurally generate stories. Last time around we built our first comonad, and could thus provide our first interpretation of a Story. Success!

## Weeds in the Abstraction Garden

Unfortunately, not all is blissful in this glorious garden of abstraction we've cultivated for ourselves. Something rotten is afoot. Brace yourself for the horror: our semantics are bad.

Recall the definition of our command functor:

data StoryF a = Change Character ChangeType (ChangeResult -> a)
| Interrupt (Story ()) (Story ()) a

So what's the problem? Well, if you think about how we'll use Interrupt, we've broken an important principle: everything is an expression. The semantics we had for Interrupt was that the first Story () was interrupted at some point with the second Story (), and once that was finished, the a would continue.

Given these semantics, the second Story () runs in the same "line of reality" as a. However, the fact that our interrupting story returns () means it can never pass any information along to the continued computation. We've accidentally implemented a black hole of knowledge in our story system.

How? Let's see:

story :: Story ()
story = do
interrupt (leave charlie) $do deathOfCharlie <- die charlie return () -- mandated by our Story () type This is a sad story, about how while attempting to leave, Charlie dies. However, nobody can ever learn about this, and it can never affect the rest of the story, since the value deathOfCharlie can never escape the scope of the interrupt block. While it's certainly different storytelling, it's not very good storytelling. A story about random things happening which don't affect the rest of the plot is kind of what we'd expect a procedurally generated story to look like, but I think we can do better. Sometimes this kind of storytelling can be successful, but it's usually not. ## That Which Exists Without My Knowledge So what's the solution? Well, in the same way that the Change constructor creates a ChangeResult and passes it to the remainder of the computation, our Interrupt should create a y (the result of the interrupting story), and pass it on to the remainder of the computation. But x can vary! And StoryF is recursive! But x can vary between layers of StoryFs. Clearly1 x is unreasonably polymorphic for us to be able to pin down as a type parameter to StoryF. So what ever can we do? Existential quantification to the rescue! If you're unfamiliar with this, it's essentially having an instance of an interface in more traditional OOP languages. We have some type x, but we don't know anything about it, and the only thing we can do with it is shuffle it around, desperately hoping someone down the line has a function that works over any type. Let's make it happen: {-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-} data StoryF a = Change Character ChangeType (ChangeResult -> a) | forall x y. Interrupt (Story x) (Story y) (y -> a) The forall x y syntax introduces two type variables x and y which are existential -- they're in scope but we can never know what they are. Our two stories can now vary over any types, and the continuation of our program takes the result of the latter story. This gives us our desired semantics; all that's left is to make it typecheck. There's a fair amount of plumbing to do, but slow and steady wins the race. ## Mechanical Exist-fixing We update our CoStoryF to also handle existentials: data CoStoryF b = CoStoryF { changeH :: Character -> ChangeType -> (ChangeResult, b) , interruptH :: forall x y. Story x -> Story y -> (y, b) } And we need to pin an additional fmap into our iniquitous mess of CoStoryF's Functor instance: instance Functor CoStoryF where fmap f (CoStoryF c i) = CoStoryF ((fmap . fmap . fmap) f c) ((fmap . fmap . fmap) f i) along with the Zap instance to zap the our resulting y into our StoryF's y -> a: instance Zap StoryF CoStoryF where zap f (Change c ct k) (CoStoryF h _) = zap f k (h c ct) zap f (Interrupt x y k) (CoStoryF _ h) = zap f k (h x y) Success! Everything compiles! So it must work, right? This suspicious rhetorical question turns out to actually be misleading -- everything actually does work. This is Haskell, after all. ## A Good Story Is Always Ranked(N) However, it's now significantly harder to construct CoStory bs. Before, our interrupted stories couldn't actually ever change anything, so we didn't need to interpret them. That approach no longer holds water, so we need to find a way of letting a CoStory be implemented in terms of itself. Recall that we previously constructed our CoStory b out of a few values: • start :: b • handleChange :: b -> Character -> ChangeType -> (ChangeResult, b) • handleInterrupt :: b -> Story () -> Story () -> b That handleInterrupt is no longer going to fly. Let's update it to our new semantics and try again: handleInterrupt :: b -> Story x -> Story y -> (y, b) Good! But we have no means of interpreting Story y in order to get the y of our resulting pair. Fortunately, we do have a means of interpreting Storys: interpret :: Story a -> CoStory b -> (a, b). We'll want to fix the CoStory b to be the one we're currently defining, so that you can't accidentally change your interpretation strategy half way through. {-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-} handleInterrupt :: (forall a. Story a -> (a, b)) -> b -> Story x -> Story y -> (y, b) What's this forall a. stuff? Well, without it, our type variable a will get bound the first time we interpreted a story, which would be to either x or to y. Once this is the case, we'd be unable to interpret the other story. Annotating our interpretation function parameter here forces Haskell to hold off binding that type variable: instead of working on some type a, it must work forall a. Get it? With all the pieces in place, we're ready to write our helper function. Prepare yourself for the most horrifying type signature I've ever written: mkCoStory :: b -> (b -> Character -> ChangeType -> (ChangeResult, b)) -> (forall x y . (forall a. Story a -> (a, b)) -> b -> Story x -> Story y -> (y, b)) -> CoStory b Don't panic! In a second, you'll recognize this is just the combination of start, handleChange and handleInterrupt mashed into a single function. You'll notice we also had to mark our x and y type variables as being forall, since our handleInterrupt function mustn't be bound to the first x and ys it finds. The implementation is worth working your way through to see how it works: mkCoStory start changeH interruptH = fix$ \self -> coiter (next (flip interpret self)) start
where
next run b =
CoStoryF
(changeH b)
(interruptH (unsafeCoerce run) b)

It's not as lovely as I'd like. In particular, there's that unsafeCoerce in there which tricks the compiler into forgetting that our "never can be known" type y is exiting the forall y scope that defines it. This is safe because we're only forgetting that it's existential for a second -- immediately after we feed it back into an existential of the same type (we've just moved between the Story y and the y -> a in forall x y. Interrupt (Story x) (Story y) (y -> a)). That's all true, but it still makes me nervous.

I'd love to know if you can come up with a better solution, but in the meantime, this works well enough.

## Roll Call!

With the help of mkCoStory, we're now able to write a CoStory which computes all of the characters referenced in a Story -- even if they're only hypothetical:

getCharacters :: CoStory (Set Character)
getCharacters = mkCoStory S.empty changeH interruptH
where
changeH b c ct = (ChangeResult c ct, S.insert c b)
interruptH
(run :: forall a. Story a -> (a, Set Character))
b x y = ( fst (run y)
, mconcat [b, snd (run x), snd (run y)]
)

getCharacters collects referenced characters by keeping track of who changes, and recursing into interrupted branches.

The explicit type signature of run is unfortunate but necessary -- RankNTypes breaks Hindley-Milner type inference, so we need to tell Haskell what we're doing.

So we've successfully cleaned up our semantics, and enforced that our interpretation of a Story is internally consistent. However, there's still room for error -- we haven't enforced that all interpretations of a Story produce the same ChangeResult tokens. Since subsequent code can branch on their contents, this is a problem just waiting to happen, and we'll fix it next time.

1. To be honest, I'm not certain of this, but I've spent some time thinking about it and haven't yet come up with a way of doing it.