Arrows Zoo

Date: March 1, 2021
Author: Veronika Romashkina

A good archer is not known by his arrows but his aim

Thomas Fuller

Don’t know about you, folks, but I had a hard time remembering all the Haskell arrows that you can bump into in all different situations. For example, I guess I will never be able to use ViewPatterns correctly on the first attempt. For me, the digest of every use case of each arrow in Haskell sounds like a handy thing to have, at least this information will be structured somewhere, so here we go.

Each section of this post covers a specific arrow application, explains when and how it is used and gives examples. Some not that popular usages of the arrow syntax are mentioned in this writing too. So, if you are excited, let’s get started!

Arrows Blue Knight


The most frequently used arrow in Haskell – right-directed arrow -> – is the one we are going to talk about first and foremost.


-> is used in the type signatures to show the relation of types in functions. When just starting learning Haskell, we can think of this arrow as an indicator in the type. But later, we can figure out, that in reality, -> is the built-in data type specified in the GHC.Prim module:

infixr -1 ->
data (->) a b

The arrow type operator is usually used in the infix form. It shows the direction from input to output type of functions.

For instance, we say that the standard length function takes a list and returns a single integer – the list’s size. With the arrow, it is written in the type like this:

length :: [a] -> Int

We can use function type when defining a new data type:

newtype ReaderT r m a = ReaderT
    { runReaderT :: r -> m a

Another example of where you can use -> as a type operator is GADT:

data Expression where
    Literal :: String -> Expression
    Const :: Int -> Expression
    BinOperation :: BinOp -> Expression -> Expression


Like type signatures for functions and data types, we also use -> to specify the kinds of the types (aka types of the types).

With the KindSignatures extensions, we can specify the kind for the type variables:

{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-}

data IntBox (f :: Type -> Type) = IntBox (f Int)

With the relatively new GHC extension – StandaloneKindSignatures, which was added in GHC-8.10, we can specify the kind of the type similar to the way we do it for functions’ types:

type Pair :: Type -> Type
data Pair a = Pair a a

Right-directed arrow is also used in the type families declarations:

type family AllHave (f :: k -> Constraint) (xs :: [k]) :: Constraint where
    AllHave _ '[]       = ()
    AllHave f (x ': xs) = (f x, AllHave f xs)

Lambda functionπŸ”—

The syntax for lambda functions in Haskell uses the right arrow -> but on the term-level and not type-level as in the previous use-case. The general scheme is the following:

\variables with spaces (or patterns in parenthesis) -> action with variables

Here are a few examples:

doubleList :: [Int] -> [Int]
doubleList = map (\x -> x * 2)

foldl' (\hash el -> HashSet.insert el hash) mempty

ifM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
ifM p x y = p >>= \b -> if b then x else y

heads :: [NonEmpty a] -> [a]
heads = map (\(x :| _) -> x)


Case of

In addition to pattern matching in the function declaration, you can also use the case-of expression. The main difference between the case-of and top-level pattern matching is that case uses arrows -> instead of = for branch results.

whenJust :: Applicative f => Maybe a -> (a -> f ()) -> f ()
whenJust ma f = case ma of
    Just x  -> f x
    Nothing -> pure ()

Lambda case

Similar to the case-of expression, lambda case is used to reduce syntax noise when using the case construction on the last argument in lambda functions.

The most common case is to use it on the last input argument in the functions:

isEmpty :: [a] -> Bool
isEmpty = \case
    [] -> True
    _  -> False

Case guards

Just like guards in normal functions, you can use guards with cases as well in the same manner, but keeping the syntax of the case-of with ->:

maybeAddEven :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
maybeAddEven ma mb = case (ma, mb) of
    (Just a, Just b)
        | even a && even b -> Just a + b
        | otherwise -> Nothing
    (_, _) -> Nothing

Lambda Case*

Additionally, since GHC 9.0.1, combining LambdaCase with Arrows allows the \case syntax to be used as a command in the proc notation:

proc x -> (f -< x) `catchA` \case
    p1 -> cmd1
    pN -> cmdN

View PatternsπŸ”—

-XViewPatterns is a handy extension that allows writing function application directly in the arguments specification. And, as you can guess, the -> is part of its syntax too. First, you need to specify the function you want to apply and then, after the arrow, the variable that you can use later on in the function body. E.g.

mkUser :: Text -> Text -> User
mkUser (Text.toLower -> nickname) (Text.toLower -> name) = User
    { userNickname = nickname
    , userName = name

You can also use ViewPatterns with the concrete pattern, not the variable:

startWithA :: String -> Bool
startWithA (map toLower -> 'a':_) = True
startWithA _ = False

Multiple ViewPatterns can be composed in a single pattern:

maybeEven :: Maybe Int -> String
maybeEven (fromMaybe 0 -> even -> isEven) =
    if isEven
    then "Even number"
    else "Other"

The above is equivalent to the usage of ordinary function composition and a single view pattern:

maybeEven (even . fromMaybe 0 -> isEven)
> maybeEven (Just 2)
"Even number"
> maybeEven (Just 15)
> maybeEven Nothing

Multi-Way IfπŸ”—

The MultiWayIf extension allows writing if-then-else constructions with guards to check more conditions on the same level, and it also uses the right-directed arrow (->). Check this one out:

choose :: [String] -> IO ()
choose allowedStrs = do
    input <- getLine
    if | trim input == "" ->
           putStrLn "Empty input" >> choose allowedStrs
       | map toLower input `elem` allowedStrs ->
           putStrLn $ "You choose: " <> input
       | otherwise ->
           putStrLn "Choose wisely" >> choose allowedStrs

Linear types*πŸ”—

The brand new feature introduced in Haskell is linear types. It only appeared in GHC-9.0 and is not yet that widespread, but it is nice to know that the arrow with the special syntax can represent linear types. The syntax is using %m -> to specify the β€œlinearity” of the function.

See the example of the uncons function, that consumes the input list only once (hence %1):

uncons :: [a] %1 -> Maybe (a, [a])
uncons [] = Nothing
uncons (x:xs) = Just (x, xs)


Now, let’s see where the opposite-direction arrow <- is used. It is also quite popular and has different use-cases, which is good to distinguish in order to understand and control your code better.


One of the main syntactic Haskell features is β€œdo” notation. Do-notation is an alternative for building up monadic computations, using a pseudo-imperative code writing style with the named variables. In reality, do-notation is the syntax-sugar for the binding that uses the left arrow <- operator to assign the result of binding into the variable.

There are a few types of do-notations. We are going to check out each of them separately here.

Traditional Do-notation

Any instance of the Monad class can be used in a traditional do-block in Haskell without any additional extension whatsoever.

The most conventional usage of do-notation is with the IO Monad:

main :: IO ()
main = do
    input <- getLine
    putStrLn $ input <> " is what you wrote."

This is the same as:

main = getLine >>= \input -> putStrLin (input <> " is what you wrote.")

Note how our new arrow <- translates to the already familiar lambda-arrow -> and the bind (>>=) operator.

Do-notation could be written with any Monad: Maybe, Either, Reader, State, etc.

Note: do not confuse <- binding and let = expressions in the do-notation. let = is used for simple variable assignment, when <- is used to assign the β€œbinded” variable.

main :: ()
main = do
    input <- getLine
    let reversedInput = reverse input
    putStrLn $ "Reverse of what you wrote is " <> reversedInput


ApplicativeDo is a GHC extension that allows using do-notation with the Applicative representers. Unlike monadic do, this one uses do-notation to syntax sugar <$> and <*> operators of the Applicative typeclass.

Applicative-do is very useful for working with Applicative-based solutions, for example, with optparse-applicative – Haskell parsing library:

{-# LANGUAGE ApplicativeDo #-}

userParser :: Parser User
userParser = do
    userName <- nameParser
    userAge  <- ageParser
    pure (User userName userAge)

The above becomes the syntax sugar for:

userParser :: Parser User
userParser = User <$> nameParser <*> ageParser


RecursiveDo is yet another extension to strengthen do-notation. It allows recursive bindings that won’t work with the ordinary do-notation.

{-# LANGUAGE RecursiveDo #-}

data Node = Node Int (IORef Node)

mkNode ::  IO (IORef Node)
mkNode = do
    rec nodeRef <- newIORef (Node 0 nodeRef)
    return nodeRef

Alternatively to the rec keyword for the particular binding, mdo could be used instead of do to use recursive bindings on the whole block where GHC will cleverly apply it optimally.


The QualifiedDo extension is the most recent addition to the compiler that became available only with the GHC version 9.0.

The feature allows you to customise the do-notation sugaring rules (you can use the >>= function defined in some modules in the qualified do blocks). You would then be able to specify qualified for each particular case you want to use it with.

For example, if we have a List module that would define binding functions:

module List where

import Prelude hiding (Monad (..))

(>>=) :: [a] -> (a -> [b]) -> [b]
(>>=) = flip concatMap

(>>) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
(>>) = (:)

Then you can use it for the list do-notation:

{-# LANGUAGE QualifiedDo #-}

import qualified List

list :: [String]
list =
    num <- [10, 42]
    show num

And it works like this:

> list

You can also combine different dos:

import qualified Your.Module.With.Defined.Bind as M

f :: M.M SomeType
f =
    x <- foo  -- <- represents M.>>=
    foo' $ do
        y <- g1  -- <- represents Prelude.>>=
        g2 x y


Comprehensions are an expressive shorthand for building computations on some particular structures. There are several different comprehensions you can try on your favourite types.

Comprehensions use the <- arrow to express generators that would be used for the structure building.

List comprehension

List comprehension is the syntactic sugar for working on lists. See the following examples:

> [ (i, j) | i <- [0..2], j <- [0..2] ]

> [ (i, j) | i <- [0..2], j <- [0..2], i /= j ]

This function is actually the Cartesian product of two sets – a list of pairs of numbers from sets of numbers from 0 to 2. Here, with <-, you hand over each element of the list as an input to generate pairs.

List comprehensions are the most convenient for writing some maps and filters over lists.

Note that you can use functions in list comprehensions and also nested list comprehensions as well.

Parallel List comprehension

One way to boost your list comprehension skills is to use the ParallelListComp extension. If we think of concatMaps (or cartesian products) in list comprehensions, here, we should imagine the work of such comprehensions as zip* functions.

Syntactically, ParallelListComp uses several | statements with <- arrows.

Let’s look at the similar to the list comprehensions example to understand the difference with better:

> :set -XParallelListComp
> [ (i, j) | i <- [0..2] | j <- [0..3] ]

As you can see, it behaves exactly as zip in here, while list comprehension would give you product.

Transform List Comp

The TransformListComp extension enables the SQL-like syntax in list comprehensions. By SQL-like, I mean that several keywords from the SQL world are introduced that you can utilise in comprehension syntax: group, by, and using. Also, you need to use the then keyword for each statement.

> nums = [ ("one", 1), ("two", 2), ("three", 3), ("four", 4), ("five", 5) ]
> [ (str, num) | (str, num) <- nums, then sortWith by str ]

Monad comprehension

MonadComprehensions is the extension that allows list comprehension syntax with Monads. This also makes parallel comprehensions (Parallel List Comprehensions) and transform comprehensions (Generalised (SQL-like) List Comprehensions) to work for any monad.

Here is an example of how this feature can be used to write the maybeAddEven function from the Case guard section:

maybeAddEven :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
maybeAddEven  ma mb = [ a + b | a <- ma, b <- mb, even a, even b ]

Pattern guardπŸ”—

Pattern guard is a feature that, in some way, extends the guards notion. Instead of being a boolean expression like in simple guards, a pattern guard is a list of qualifiers, similar to the previous section’s list comprehension.

You can often use it instead of the awkward case-of statements.

And again, let’s reuse the maybeAddEven example, but this time with the help of the pattern guards feature:

maybeAddEven :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
maybeAddEven ma mb
    | Just a <- ma
    , even a
    , Just b <- mb
    , even b
        = Just $ a + b
    | otherwise = Nothing


PatternSynonyms is an extension that allows you to define names for the patterns. To define some of the patterns, you need to use <-. For example:

pattern Head x <- x:xs

foo :: [a] -> Maybe a
foo [] = Nothing
foo (Head x) = Just x

See more about patterns here.

Other ArrowsπŸ”—

There are much more arrows for all tastes in Haskell. Here are a few more diversely looking arrows, used in various situations, for you to enjoy.


This fat arrow is used to specify constraints in the type signatures:

sort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]

<<= and =>>πŸ”—

The double-tip arrows represent operator forms of the Comonadic extend and flipped extend functions.

As Comonad is the dual to the Monad concept, you can notice why the operators look this way. It is just the opposite of the monadic bind – >>= and =<< operators.


These arrows are from the Category typeclass. >>> is the left-to-right composition, and <<< – right-to-left composition (similar to the dot (.) composition operator) in the Category and Arrows world. The following three examples, demonstrating different order of composition, produce the same result:

lowerName :: User -> Text
lowerName = toLower . userName
-- or
lowerName = toLower <<< userName
-- or
lowerName = userName >>> toLower


Similar to the do-notation we saw before, GHC has a special do syntax for Arrows. Instead of the <- arrow, you can use -< when working with the Arrow typeclass:

foo = proc x -> do
    fx <- f -< x
    gx <- g -< x
    returnA -< (fx + gx)


Arrows in Haskell can have ambiguous meaning depending on the context. Hope, this post could make the use-cases clearer and help understand some different arrow usage situations.