I spent some quality time today trying to hack together a continuation passing style system in Ruby, to clarify some of my thinking. I ended up with something that is more or less a very small interpreter for S expressions, that uses a trampolining CPS interpreter. The language is not in any way complete, such things as assignment isn’t there, there is only one global scope and so on, so the continuations in this system is really not useful for anything except for hacking with it to gain understanding.
As such, I thought people might find it a bit interesting. I wish I’d seen something like this 5 or 10 years ago… Note that this code is extremely hacky and incomplete and bad and whatnot. Be warned. =)
OK, first you need to “gem install sexp”. This provides dead easy parsing of S expressions. Since that wasn’t the main purpose of this code, doing it with a Gem was easier.
The first part of the code we need is the requires, and structures to represent continuations:
require 'rubygems'
require 'sexpressions'
class Cont
def initialize(k)
@k = k
end
end
class BottomCont < Cont
def initialize(k, &block)
super(k)
@f = block
end
def resume(v)
@f.call(v)
end
end
class IfCont < Cont
def initialize(k, et, ef, r)
super(k)
@et, @ef, @r = et, ef, r
end
def resume(v)
evaluate((v ? @et : @ef), @r, @k)
end
end
class CallCont < Cont
def initialize(k, r)
super(k)
@r = r
end
def resume(v)
evaluate(v, @r, @k)
end
end
class ContCont < Cont
def initialize(k, v, r)
super(k)
@r, @v = r, v
end
def resume(v)
evaluate(@v, @r, v)
end
end
class NextCont < Cont
def initialize(k, ne, r)
super(k)
@ne, @r = ne, r
end
def resume(v)
evaluate(@ne, @r, @k)
end
end
BottomCont is is what we use to do something at the end of the program. We could print something, or anything else. IfCont is used to implement a conditional. It’s quite easy - once we resume we check the truth value and evaluate the next part based of the result. CallCont will invoke some existing S expressions in a variable. It just takes the value and evaluates that. ContCont is a bit trickier. It will take a value, and then when asked to resume will assume that the parameter to resume is a continuation and invoke that continuation with the value it got earlier. Finally, NextCont is used to implement basic sequencing. It basically just throws away the earlier value and uses the next instead.
The actual code for evaluate and a helper function looks like this:
def evaluate_sexp(sexp)
cont = BottomCont.new(nil) do |val|
return val
end
env = {
:haha => proc{|x| puts "calling proc"; 43 },
:print => proc{|x| puts "printing" },
:save_cont => proc{|x| puts "saving cont"; env[:saved] = x; true },
:foo => 42,
:bar => 33,
:flux => "(call flux)".parse_sexp.first
}
c = evaluate(sexp, env, cont)
while true
c = c.call
end
end
def evaluate(e, r, k)
if e.is_a?(Array)
case e.first
when :if
evaluate(e[1], r, IfCont.new(k,e[2],e[3],r))
when :call
evaluate(e[1], r, CallCont.new(k, r))
when :continue
p [:calling, :continue, e[1]]
evaluate(e[1], r, ContCont.new(k, e[2], r))
when :prog2
evaluate(e[1], r, NextCont.new(k, e[2], r))
end
else
case e
when :true
proc { k.resume(true) }
when :nil
proc { k.resume(nil) }
when Symbol
proc {
if r[e].is_a?(Proc)
k.resume(r[e].call(k))
else
k.resume(r[e])
end
}
else
proc { k.resume(e) }
end
end
end
Here evaluate_sexp is the entry point to the code. We first create a BottomCont that will just return the value. We then create an environment that includes simple values, a function (flux) that calls itself, and some procs that do different things. Finally evaluate is called, and then we repeatedly evaluate the thunk it returns. Since we know that the bottom continuation will return, we can actually invoke this part indefinitely. That is the actual trampolining part, right there.
The evaluate function will check if it’s an array we got, and in that case it will check the first entry and switch based on that, creating IfCont, CallCont, ContCont or NextCont based on the entry. If it’s a primitive value we do something different. As you can see we first check if the value is one of a few special ones, and then if it’s a symbol we look it up in the environment. If the value from the environment is a proc we invoke it with the current continuation, which means the proc can do funky stuff with it. The common thing for all the branches is that they wrap everything they do in a thunk, and inside that thunk call resume on the continuation with the value provided.
Finally we can try it out a bit:
p evaluate_sexp("123".parse_sexp.first) # 123
p evaluate_sexp("bar".parse_sexp.first) # 33
p evaluate_sexp("nil".parse_sexp.first) # nil
p evaluate_sexp("(if quux 13 (if true (if nil 444 555)))".parse_sexp.first) # 555
p evaluate_sexp("(if quux 13 (if true (if nil 444 haha)))".parse_sexp.first)
Here you can see that simple things work as expected.
What about calling the flux function, that will invoke itself?
p evaluate_sexp("(call flux)".parse_sexp.first)
This will actually loop endlessly. In effect, when we add trampolining to a CPS, we in effect get a stack less interpreter, in such a way that we get tail call recursion for free.
Finally, what about the actual continuation stuff? Another way of creating an eternal loop is to do something like this:
p evaluate_sexp("(prog2 save_cont (prog2 print (continue saved 33333)))".parse_sexp.first)
This piece of interesting code will actually loop forever. How? Well, first the prog2 will run the proc in save_cont. This will save the current continuation, and then return true from the proc. Then the next prog2 will be entered, running the print proc. Finally, the final part will be evaluating the continue form, which will take the continuation in saved, invoke that with the value 33333. This will in effect jump back to the first prog2, return 33333 from the call to save_cont and go into the next prog2 again. Looping…
If you use an if statement instead, and return nil from the inner call to the continuation, and add some printing to the IfCont#resume, you can see that that point will only be invoked twice:
p evaluate_sexp("(if save_cont (prog2 print (continue saved nil)) 321)".parse_sexp.first)
This will generate:
[:running, :if, :statement]
printing
[:calling, :continue, :saved]
[:running, :if, :statement]
321
Here it’s obvious that the if statement runs twice, and that the second time the evaluation turns into false, which makes the final continuation return 321
I hope this little excursion into CPS land was interesting for someone. It’s a quite useful technique to know about, once you wrap your head around it.
2 Comments | By Ola Bini | In: blogging | tags: continuations, cps, programming language design, ruby. | #
