Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7175673
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T16:20:59+00:00 2026-05-28T16:20:59+00:00

I have a problem to which a stack of monad transformers (or even one

  • 0

I have a problem to which a stack of monad transformers (or even one monad transformer) over IO. Everything is good, except that using lift before every action is terribly annoying! I suspect there is really nothing to do about that, but I thought I’d ask anyway.

I am aware of lifting entire blocks, but what if the code is really of mixed types? Would it not be nice if GHC threw in some syntactic sugar (for example, <-$ = <- lift)?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-28T16:21:01+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 4:21 pm

    For all the standard mtl monads, you don’t need lift at all. get, put, ask, tell — they all work in any monad with the right transformer somewhere in the stack. The missing piece is IO, and even there liftIO lifts an arbitrary IO action down an arbitrary number of layers.

    This is done with typeclasses for each “effect” on offer: for example, MonadState provides get and put. If you want to create your own newtype wrapper around a transformer stack, you can do deriving (..., MonadState MyState, ...) with the GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving extension, or roll your own instance:

    instance MonadState MyState MyMonad where
      get = MyMonad get
      put s = MyMonad (put s)
    

    You can use this to selectively expose or hide components of your combined transformer, by defining some instances and not others.

    (You can easily extend this approach to all-new monadic effects you define yourself, by defining your own typeclass and providing boilerplate instances for the standard transformers, but all-new monads are rare; most of the time, you’ll get by simply composing the standard set offered by mtl.)

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a problem that I implemented a functionality in which we draw bitmaps
Hello good Stack Overflow people, I do have a business problem and would like
Good Morning Stack Overflow, I'm new to asp.net and have a problem I'm trying
I have a problem that, I have a serializable class which sets and gets
I have a problem which requires me to parse several log files from a
I have a problem which I think is related to forward declarations, but perhaps
I have a problem which requires a reversable 1:1 mapping of keys to values.
I have a problem which I cant seem to find answer to through searches
I have a problem which I don't know how to fix. It has to
I'm developing an Eclipse plug-in and I have a problem which is reproduced here:

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.