Matija    about    posts    reading

Intro to monad transformers in Haskell

NOTE: this tutorial assumes you are already familiar with monads. If not, I would recommend learning about monads first.

Why monad transformers?

Let’s say we have functions with the following signatures:

type UserId = String

fetchUsersName :: UserId -> IO (Maybe String)

fetchUsersSurname :: UserId -> IO (Maybe String)

fetchUsersAge :: UserId -> IO (Maybe Int)

Imagine we are building an app and this is an API we are given to access specific user’s data. These functions take user’s id and go into the world to perform an IO action - e.g. a network request, or read from the disk. Also, an IO action can fail if e.g. there was no network connection available - that is why Maybe is in the return type.

With that, we want to implement the following function:

fetchUsersData :: UserId -> IO (Maybe (String, String, Int))

This function tries to fetch all the data for the specific user (name, surname and age) and if any piece of this data couldn’t be obtained it will declare itself as failed by returning Nothing within IO monad.

This is how we would go about implementing fetchUsersData:

fetchUsersData :: UserId -> IO (Maybe (String, String, Int))
fetchUsersData userId = do
    maybeName <- fetchUsersName userId
    case maybeName of
        Nothing -> return Nothing
        Just name -> do
            maybeSurname <- fetchUsersSurname userId
            case maybeSurname of
                Nothing -> return Nothing
                Just surname -> do
                    maybeAge <- fetchUsersAge userId
                    case maybeAge of
                        Nothing -> return Nothing
                        Just age -> return (Just (name, surname, age))

And this would work! The only not so nice thing is that we have this “staircasing” typical when nesting multiple Maybes. We would normally solve this by running things within a Maybe monad, but this time we are in IO monad so we can’t do that!

To generalize the problem, it occurs when we have one monad within another (Maybe within IO here) and would like to access “powers” of the inner monad to make our code nicer.

This is a common case when using monads in Haskell and exactly what monad transformers are set to solve - making it possible to user “powers” of one monad within another monad. In this case, we would like to extend IO’s capabilities with Maybe’s power to exit the computation early.

What is a monad transformer?

Here is what the documentation says:

A monad transformer makes a new monad out of an existing monad, such that computations of the old monad may be embedded in the new one.

And then there is a typeclass MonadTrans which monad transfomer has to implement, which means monad transformer is actually a type. Monad transformer is a monad as well.

Here is how it looks like in our case, where we want to extend IO with Maybe capabilities:

newtype MaybeT m a = MaybeT { runMaybeT :: m (Maybe a) }

MaybeT m a is a monad transformer version of Maybe a. There is only that extra m which stands for an “inner” monad that will be expanded with Maybe capabilities.

Regarding the data constructor and field of MaybeT, here’s another bit from the documentation:

Each monad transformer also comes with an operation runXXXT to unwrap the transformer, exposing a computation of the inner monad.

If we wrapped IO with MaybeT and then couldn’t get it back again that would be a problem, since the function we are implementing needs to return IO (Maybe (String, String, Int)).

From this we can generalize and conclude that a monad transformer has:

  • one additional type parameter (compared to its monad counterpart) - a monad that is being expanded
  • runXXXT function/field which returns the original, “inner” monad

What does it mean “monads don’t compose”?

If you have been learning about monad transformers, odds are you came across this statement. I did too, and often it was the first thing discussed when talking about monad transformers. But I couldn’t understand what does it mean to “compose” monads nor why it is a problem if that cannot be done.

As you also probably know and as we saw in the example with Maybe, each monad has its monad transformer counterpart (Maybe and MaybeT, Either and EitherT, …). Each of these monad transformer counterparts had to be manually and separately implemented by somebody.

That is exactly what the statement in question (monad composition) challenges - why do we have to do so much work, do we really need to implement xxxT version of each monad? It would be awesome if we could somehow automate this.

And that is where composing monads would come in handy. Monad composition is creating a new type which is parametrized by (any) two monads and is then also itself a monad. It would look like this:

newtype MonadComposition m1 m2 a = MonadComposition { getMC :: m1 (m2 a)) }

This is the general case of the example above, where m1 and m2 were IO and Maybe, respectively (one monad wrapped in another).

Now the main question here is can we implement the following:

instance (Monad m1, Monad m2) => Monad (MonadComposition m1 m2) where
    return = ...
    join = ...

If we could, that would mean MonadComposition m1 m2 is also a monad. Meaning that we solved the general case of composing any two monads! If that was true, we wouldn’t need to bother with implementing MaybeT, EitherT, ReaderT separately - MonadComposition would cover all of that for us automatically!

But as you reckon, that is not the case. It is not possible to make MonadComposition m1 m2 an instance of Monad typeclass. It can be proved and it is not trivial. From the intuitive perspective, we can understand that we need more information, the general case is not covering it. If the “outer” monad is Maybe, we need to implement what MaybeT will do in terms of Nothing and Just x, which means we need the specifics.

So that is it! Now you know what “monads don’t compose” means and why it is important.


We used it as an example in the introduction, but let’s now officially take look at it.

From the docs:

The MaybeT monad transformer extends a monad with the ability to exit the computation without returning a value.

A sequence of actions produces a value only if all the actions in the sequence do. If one exits, the rest of the sequence is skipped and the composite action exits.

Here is the type definition:

newtype MaybeT m a = MaybeT { runMaybeT :: m (Maybe a) }

m being an arbitrary monad composed with Maybe monad. Let’s now see it in action with our example from the beginning:

fetchUsersData :: UserId -> IO (Maybe (String, String, Int))
fetchUsersData userId = runMaybeT $ do
    name <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersName userId
    surname <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersSurname userId
    age <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersAge userId

    return (name, surname, age)

We can see from the types this works. We don’t end on the left hand side of <- anymore with Maybe a which we then have to unpack (leading to the staircasing we saw before), but we get a directly.

But what actually happens behind the curtains? Let’s see how MaybeT implements Monad typeclass:

instance Monad (MaybeT m) where
    -- yields a computation that produces value
    return :: a -> MaybeT m a
    return = MaybeT . return . Just

    -- if a computation within monad failed, shortcircuits to failed.
    (>>=) :: MaybeT m a -> (a -> MaybeT m b) -> MaybeT m b
    x >>= f = MaybeT $ do -- entering inner monad m
        v <- runMaybeT x  -- unpacking x from `MaybeT m a` to `Maybe a`
        case v of
            Nothing -> return Nothing
            Just y -> runMaybeT (f y)

We can see that actually here MaybeT does the heavy lifting for us, what we previously did manually (staircasing example) - it operates within m (IO in the example) and gets to Maybe a and then checks does that “manual” check whether it is Nothing or not.


We said monad transformers are all about combining the powers of two or more monads. With our MaybeT IO a example we’ve shown how we can get Maybe’s power and make sure that the whole computation is short-circuited to Nothing if some sub-computation failed. But what if we wanted to do some IO stuff, e.g. print Fetching data...?

This is why we have lift, which is the only function of MonadTrans typeclass:

class MonadTrans t where
    -- | Lift a computation from the argument monad to the constructed monad.
    lift :: (Monad m) => m a -> t m a

Argument monad is the “inner” monad (IO in our example) and constructed monad is the actual monad transformer (MaybeT in our case).

So this is the function that allows us to “lift” the inner monad’s computation into the monad transformer realm, hence the name. It allows us to do this:

fetchUsersData :: UserId -> IO (Maybe (String, String, Int))
fetchUsersData userId = runMaybeT $ do
    lift $ putStrLn "Fetching data..." -- <- NEW

    name <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersName userId
    surname <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersSurname userId
    age <- MaybeT $ fetchUsersAge userId

    return (name, surname, age)

lift here does exactly what it says in its signature, takes IO () and lifts it into MaybeT IO () so we can call this printing action within MaybeT monad.

It is also maybe interesting to see how MaybeT implements lift:

instance MonadTrans MaybeT where
    lift = MaybeT . liftM Just

In the case of printing from above, IO () would come in, liftM Just would produce IO (Just ()) and then MaybeT data constructor would create an instance of MaybeT IO () type.

Phew, we just went through our first monad transformer! Let’s now take a look at another on - EitherT.