# do-Notation for Monads

While APIs based on monads are very powerful, the explicit use of >>= with anonymous functions is still somewhat noisy. Just as infix operators are used instead of explicit calls to HAdd.hAdd, Lean provides a syntax for monads called do-notation that can make programs that use monads easier to read and write. This is the very same do-notation that is used to write programs in IO, and IO is also a monad.

In Hello, World!, the do syntax is used to combine IO actions, but the meaning of these programs is explained directly. Understanding how to program with monads means that do can now be explained in terms of how it translates into uses of the underlying monad operators.

The first translation of do is used when the only statement in the do is a single expression E. In this case, the do is removed, so

do E


translates to

E


The second translation is used when the first statement of the do is a let with an arrow, binding a local variable. This translates to a use of >>= together with a function that binds that very same variable, so

do let x ← E1
Stmt
...
En


translates to

E1 >>= fun x =>
do Stmt
...
En


When the first statement of the do block is an expression, then it is considered to be a monadic action that returns Unit, so the function matches the Unit constructor and

do E1
Stmt
...
En


translates to

E1 >>= fun () =>
do Stmt
...
En


Finally, when the first statement of the do block is a let that uses :=, the translated form is an ordinary let expression, so

do let x := E1
Stmt
...
En


translates to

let x := E1
do Stmt
...
En


The definition of firstThirdFifthSeventh that uses the Monad class looks like this:

def firstThirdFifthSeventh [Monad m] (lookup : List α → Nat → m α) (xs : List α) : m (α × α × α × α) :=
lookup xs 0 >>= fun first =>
lookup xs 2 >>= fun third =>
lookup xs 4 >>= fun fifth =>
lookup xs 6 >>= fun seventh =>
pure (first, third, fifth, seventh)


Using do-notation, it becomes significantly more readable:

def firstThirdFifthSeventh [Monad m] (lookup : List α → Nat → m α) (xs : List α) : m (α × α × α × α) := do
let first ← lookup xs 0
let third ← lookup xs 2
let fifth ← lookup xs 4
let seventh ← lookup xs 6
pure (first, third, fifth, seventh)


Without the Monad type class, the function number that numbers the nodes of a tree was written:

def number (t : BinTree α) : BinTree (Nat × α) :=
let rec helper : BinTree α → State Nat (BinTree (Nat × α))
| BinTree.leaf => ok BinTree.leaf
| BinTree.branch left x right =>
helper left ~~> fun numberedLeft =>
get ~~> fun n =>
set (n + 1) ~~> fun () =>
helper right ~~> fun numberedRight =>
ok (BinTree.branch numberedLeft (n, x) numberedRight)
(helper t 0).snd


With Monad and do, its definition is much less noisy:

def number (t : BinTree α) : BinTree (Nat × α) :=
let rec helper : BinTree α → State Nat (BinTree (Nat × α))
| BinTree.leaf => pure BinTree.leaf
| BinTree.branch left x right => do
let numberedLeft ← helper left
let n ← get
set (n + 1)
let numberedRight ← helper right
ok (BinTree.branch numberedLeft (n, x) numberedRight)
(helper t 0).snd


All of the conveniences from do with IO are also available when using it with other monads. For example, nested actions also work in any monad. The original definition of mapM was:

def mapM [Monad m] (f : α → m β) : List α → m (List β)
| [] => pure []
| x :: xs =>
f x >>= fun hd =>
mapM f xs >>= fun tl =>
pure (hd :: tl)


With do-notation, it can be written:

def mapM [Monad m] (f : α → m β) : List α → m (List β)
| [] => pure []
| x :: xs => do
let hd ← f x
let tl ← mapM f xs
pure (hd :: tl)


Using nested actions makes it almost as short as the original non-monadic map:

def mapM [Monad m] (f : α → m β) : List α → m (List β)
| [] => pure []
| x :: xs => do
pure ((← f x) :: (← mapM f xs))


Using nested actions, number can be made much more concise:

def increment : State Nat Nat := do
let n ← get
set (n + 1)
pure n

def number (t : BinTree α) : BinTree (Nat × α) :=
let rec helper : BinTree α → State Nat (BinTree (Nat × α))
| BinTree.leaf => pure BinTree.leaf
| BinTree.branch left x right => do
pure (BinTree.branch (← helper left) ((← increment), x) (← helper right))
(helper t 0).snd


## Exercises

• Rewrite evaluateM, its helpers, and the different specific use cases using do-notation instead of explicit calls to >>=.
• Rewrite firstThirdFifthSeventh using nested actions.