# justified-containers Keyed container types with type-checked proofs of key presence. # Description Have you ever *known* that a key could be found in a certain map? Were you tempted to reach for `fromJust` or `error` to handle the "impossible" case, when you knew that `lookup` should give `Just v`? (and did shifting requirements ever make the impossible become possible after all?) `Data.Map.Justified` provides a zero-cost `newtype` wrapper around `Data.Map.Map` that enables you to separate the *proof that a key is present* from the *operations using the key*. Once you prove that a key is present, you can use it `Maybe`-free in any number of other operations -- sometimes even operations on other maps! None of the functions in this module can cause a run-time error, and very few of the operations return a `Maybe` value. See the `Data.Map.Justified.Tutorial` module for usage examples, or browse the API of the most recent release [on Hackage](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/justified-containers/docs/Data-Map-Justified.html). ### Example ```haskell withMap test_table $ \table -> do case member 1 table of Nothing -> putStrLn "Sorry, I couldn't prove that the key is present." Just key -> do -- We have proven that the key is present, and can now use it Maybe-free... putStrLn ("Found key: " ++ show key) putStrLn ("Value for key: " ++ lookup key table) -- ...even in certain other maps! let table' = reinsert key "howdy" table putStrLn ("Value for key in updated map: " ++ lookup key table') ``` Output: Found key: Key 1 Value for key: hello Value for key in updated map: howdy ## Motivation: `Data.Map` and `Maybe` values Suppose you have a key-value mapping using `Data.Map`'s type `Map k v`. Anybody making use of `Map k v` to look up or modify a value must take into account the possibility that the given key is not present. In `Data.Map`, there are two strategies for dealing with absent keys: 1. Cause a runtime error (e.g. `Data.Map`'s `(!)` when the key is absent) 2. Return a `Maybe` value (e.g. `Data.Map`'s `lookup`) The first option introduces partial functions, so is not very palatable. But what is wrong with the second option? To understand the problem with returning a `Maybe` value, let's ask what the `Maybe v` in ```haskell lookup :: k -> Map k v -> Maybe v ``` really does for us. By returning a `Maybe v` value, `lookup key table` is saying "Your program must account for the possibility that `key` cannot be found in `table`. I will ensure that you account for this possibility by forcing you to handle the `Nothing` case." In effect, `Data.Map` is requiring the user to prove they have handled the possibility that a key is absent whenever they use the `lookup` function. ## Laziness (the bad kind) Every programmer has probably had the experience of knowing, somehow, that a certain key is going to be present in a map. In this case, the `Maybe v` feels like a burden: I already *know* that this key is in the map, why should I have to handle the `Nothing` case? In this situation, it is tempting to reach for the partial function `fromJust`, or a pattern match like `Nothing -> error "The impossible happened!"`. But as parts of the program are changed over time, you may find the impossible has become possible after all (or perhaps youll see the dreaded and unhelpful `*** Exception: Maybe.fromJust: Nothing`) It is tempting to reach for partial functions or "impossible" runtime errors here, because the programmer has proven that the key is a member of the map in some other way. They know that lookup` should return a `Just v` --- but the *compiler* doesnt know this! The idea behind `Data.Map.Justified` is to encode the programmers knowledge that a key is present *within the type system*, where it can be checked at compile-time. Once a key is known to be present, `Data.Map.Justified`'s `lookup` will never fail. Your justification removes the `Just`! # How it works Evidence that a key can indeed be found in a map is carried by a phantom type parameter `ph` shared by both the `Data.Map.Justified.Map` and `Data.Map.Justified.Key` types. If you are able to get your hands on a value of type `Key ph k`, then you must have already proven that the key is present in *any* value of type `Map ph k v`. The `Key ph k` type is simply a `newtype` wrapper around `k`, but the phantom type `ph` allows `Key ph k` to represent both *a key of type `k`* __and__ *a proof that the key is present in* *all maps of type `Map ph k v`*. There are several ways to prove that a key belongs to a map, but the simplest is to just use `Data.Map.Justified`'s `member` function. In `Data.Map`, `member` has the type ```haskell member :: Ord k => k -> Map k v -> Bool ``` and reports whether or not the key can be found in the map. In `Data.Map.Justified`, `member` has the type ```haskell member :: Ord k => k -> Map ph k v -> Maybe (Key ph k) ``` Instead of a boolean, `Data.Map.Justified`'s `member` either says `the key is not present` (`Nothing`), or gives back the same key, *augmented with evidence that they key* *is present*. This key-plus-evidence can then be used to do any number of `Maybe`-free operations on the map. `Data.Map.Justified` uses the same rank-2 polymorphism trick used in the `Control.Monad.ST` monad to ensure that the `ph` phantom type can not be extracted; in effect, the proof that a key is present can't leak to contexts where the proof would no longer be valid.