The next major release of the OCaml compiler, version 4.08, will be equipped with a new syntax extension for monadic and applicative composition. Practically it means that it will be a bit more convenient to work with APIs structured around these patterns. The design draws inspiration from ppx_let but offers lighter syntax, and removes the need of running the code through a ppx preprocessor.

Compared to similar extensions for languages like Haskell, F# and Scala, it’s interesting to note that the OCaml version is not only targeting monads but also supports a version for applicative functors.

This post contains some concrete examples of what the new syntax looks like and how to enable it.

As of writing, version 4.08 has not been officially released so in order to follow along you need to update your opam and switch to the beta release:

opam switch ocaml-variants.4.08.0+beta1

Alternatively, you can also use the latest version of dune for building, which has a backport of the syntax extension.

An example - working with options

The examples below are about composing functions returning optional results using the monad and applicative functor combinators for options.

To have something concrete to work with, assume the following API:

val safe_head : 'a seq -> 'a option
val safe_tail : 'a seq -> 'a seq option
val safe_div : float -> float -> float option

Monad syntax for options

The monadic composition combinators for the option type may be defined as a function bind with the signature:

val bind : 'a option -> ('a -> 'b option) -> 'b option

Implemented as:

let bind o f =
  match o with
  | Some x  -> f x
  | None    -> None

The convention is to also provide an infix version, as in:

let ( >>= ) o f = bind o f

It’s effectively used for composing sequences of functions yielding optional results.

As a silly example, consider writing a function that given a float seq, returns the value of the first two elements divided, if the sequence contains at least two elements, and the division is successful. Using the API from above and the monadic bind operator, it may be defined as:

let div_first_two xs =
  safe_head xs >>= fun x ->
  safe_tail xs >>= fun ys ->
  safe_head ys >>= fun y ->
  safe_div x y

We can write this differently using the syntax extension for monads, all that is needed is another alias to bind:

let (let*) x f = bind x f

That’s it, the same program can now be expressed as:

let div_first_two xs =
  let* x  = safe_head xs in
  let* ys = safe_tail xs in
  let* y  = safe_head ys in
  safe_div x y

In general, the expression:

let* x = e1 in e2 x

desugars to the equivalent of:

e1 >>= fun x -> e2 x

Applicative syntax for options

Monads are great for composing dependent computations but not all compositions are dependent. For the cases where monads are either an overkill or just not feasible, applicative functors provide an alternative. You can find some more information about this pattern in the context of OCaml, here; They are often described in terms of two functions pure and apply, with the signatures:

val pure : 'a -> 'a t
val apply  : ('a -> 'b) t -> 'a t -> 'b t

The infix version of apply is usually called (<*>), i.e.:

let ( <*> ) fa xa = apply fa xa

How exactly do they supplement monads? By looking at the signature of apply, it is clear that in the expression, f <*> x, both f and x are applicative values that exist before the evaluation of apply is performed.

In contrast, in the monadic composition expression, x >>= f, the monad value produced by f is not known until it’s actually applied a value extracted from x.

We, therefore, say that applicatives provide static composition whereas monads also support dynamic composition. In short, this makes monads more powerful but less optimization friendly.

Below are the traditional applicative combinators defined for the option type:

let pure x = Some x

let apply fo xo
  match fo, xo with
  | Some f, Some x  -> Some (f x)
  | _               -> None

let (<*>) fo xo = apply fo xo

And, here’s an example of how they’re used in defining a function that given three float seq values, adds their heads together, in case they’re all non-empty:

let add_heads xs yz zs =
  pure (fun x y z -> x +. y +. z)
  <*> safe_head xs
  <*> safe_head ys
  <*> safe_head zs

This function could of course also be written in a monadic style but what’s nice about the applicative version is that it’s apparent from the definition that there are no dependencies between the three calls to safe_head.

If we were operating in some other applicative context, say Async.t, we could in fact run the extractions in parallel.

As for the OCaml syntax extension for applicatives, it’s actually not based on apply and pure, but a pair of alternative combinators, often called map and product:

val map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a t -> 'b t
val product : 'a t -> 'b t -> 'a * 'b t

To show that apply and product are equivalent, here’s how you define the infix version of apply in terms of map and product:

let ( <*> ) fa xa = map (fun (f, x) -> f x) @@ product fa xa

Going the other way around, one can also express product using pure and apply:

let product xa ya = pure (fun x y -> (x, y) <*> xa <*> ya

The implementations of map and product for the option type are straight forward:

let map f = function
  | None    -> None
  | Some x  -> Some (f x)

let product o1 o2 =
  match o1, o2 with
  | Some x, Some y  -> Some (x,y)
  | _               -> None

Now, to enable the special syntax we just need to define (let+) as map with arguments in reversed order and (and+) as an alias for product:

let (let+) x f    = map f x
let (and+) o1 o2  = product o1 o2

Finally, using the syntax extension, we can rewrite the example above, like this:

let add_heads xs yz zs =
  let+ x = safe_head xs
  and+ y = safe_head ys
  and+ z = safe_head zs in
  x +. y +. z

Again, the syntax stresses how the three safe_head computations are independent. In fact, the compiler prevents us from introducing any dependencies (just like with regular) let .. and syntax).

In general, an expression, let+ x = e1 and+ y = e2 in e3 x y, gets desugared to:

map (fun (x,y) -> e3 x y) (product e1 e2)

Or the equivalent expression, written in terms of apply and pure:

e3 <$> e1 <*> e2

Here, (<$>) is the infix version of map.

Wrapping up

To conclude the examples for options, here’s a version where the operations are wrapped in a module Option with the syntax extensions contained in a sub module. This allows users of the library to opt in for the new syntax when needed (by opening Option.Syntax):

module Option = struct

  let map f = function
    | None    -> None
    | Some x  -> Some (f x)

  let bind o f =
    match o with
    | Some x  -> f x
    | None    -> None

  let product o1 o2 =
    match o1, o2 with
    | Some x, Some y  -> Some (x,y)
    | _               -> None

  module Syntax = struct
    let (let+) x f    = map f x
    let (and+) o1 o2  = product o1 o2
    let (let*) x f    = bind x f


So, whenever you wish to extend your data type, t, with special syntax, implement a module like Syntax, with the following signature:

module Syntax : sig

  (* Monad *)
  val ( let* ) : 'a t -> ('a -> 'b t ) -> 'b t

  (* Applicatives *)
  val ( let+ ) : 'a t -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'b t
  val ( and+ ) : 'a t -> 'b t-> ('a * 'b) t


If you’re only able to support the applicative subset, simply skip ( let* ).

Final notes

As with any language extension, there is a tradeoff between the utility introduced and the additional complexity or cognitive load required in order to benefit from it. In this case I think it’s worth the price. In particular, it’s likely going to nudge developers toward the time-tested patterns of monads and applicative functors. Having more libraries with common looking APIs actually works in the opposite direction, reducing the amount of cognitive load required.