The core of HaskellR is a library called
environments such as H and IHaskell are built on top of this core
library, which can also be used by user applications directly.
R source code is organized as a set of scripts, which are loaded one
by one into the R interpreter. Each statement in a each script is
evaluated in-order and affect the global environment mapping symbols
to values maintained by the R interpreter. In its simplest form, H is
an interactive environment much like R, with a global environment
altered by the in-order evaluation of statements. Most of the
functionality of this environment is provided by
inline-r offers a number of facilities for interoperating with R.
The central and most general mechanism by which this is done is
/quasiquotation/. A quasi-quotation is a partial R script — that is,
a script with holes in it that stand in for as of yet undetermined
portions. An example quasiquote in Haskell of an R snippet is:
[r| function(x) x + 1 ]
This quasiquote is ground, in that does not contain any holes (called antiquotes), unlike the below quasiquote:
let y = mkSEXP 1 in [r| function(x) x + y_hs ]
Unlike all other symbols, any symbol with a
_hs suffix is by
convention interpreted as a reference to a Haskell variable defined
somewhere in the ambient source code. Given any quasiquote, it is
possible to obtain a full R script, with no holes in it, by splicing
the value of the Haskell variables into the quasiquote, in place of
At a high-level,
inline-r is a desugarer for quasiquotes. It defines
how to translate a quasiquotation into a Haskell expression. Hence the
H interactive environment is an interpreter for sequences of
quasiquotes, containing R code snippets, and other Haskell snippets.
The H interactive environment is a simple launcher for GHCi that loads
inline-r library into the session and sets a number of
The library itself is structured as two layers: a bottom-half binding
to low-level internal functions of the R interpreter, using the
Foreign.R.* namespace, and a top-half building higher-level
functionality upon the bottom-half, using the
R is a very dynamic language, allowing many code modifications during runtime, such as rebinding of top-level definitions, super assignment (modifying bindings in parent scopes), (quasi-)quotation and evaluation of expressions constructed dynamically. The R programming language is also so-called “latently typed” - types are checked during execution of the code, not ahead of time. Many of these features are not compiler friendly.
Haskell, by contrast, is a language with principled dynamic programming features, making it much easier to compile. This means that not all R constructs and primitives can be readily mapped to statically generated Haskell code with decent performance.
Much of the dynamic flavour of R likely stems from the fact that it is a scripting language. The content of a script is meant to be evaluated in sequential order in an interactive R prompt. The effect of loading multiple R scripts at the prompt is in general different depending on the order of the scripts.
Central to the design of Haskell, by contrast, is the notion of separately compilable units of code, called modules. Modules can be compiled separately and in any order (provided some amount of metadata about dependencies). Contrary to R scripts, the order in which modules are loaded into memory is non-deterministic.
For this reason, in keeping to a simple solution to interoperating
with R, we choose to devolve as much processing of R code as possible
to an embedded instance of the R interpreter and retain the notion of
global environment that R provides. This global environment can
readily be manipulated from an interactive environment such as GHCi.
In compiled modules, access to the environment as well as
encapsulation of any effects can be mediated through a custom monad,
which we call the
Haskell is also statically typed. However, this apparent mismatch does not cause any particular problem in practice. This is because the distinction between “statically typed” languages and “dynamically typed” languages is largely artificial, stemming from the conflation of two distinct concepts: that of a class and that of a type. From the above link:
We all recognize that it is often very useful to have multiple classes of values of the same type. The prototypical example is provided by the complex numbers. There is one type of complex numbers that represent points in two-dimensional space. In school we encounter two classes of complex numbers, the rectangular and the polar. That is, there are two ways to present a complex number using two different systems of coordinates. They are, of course, interchangeable, because they represent values of the same type. But the form of presentation differs, and some forms are more convenient than others. […]
Crucially, the distinction between the two classes of complex number is dynamic in that a given computation may result in a number of either class, according to convenience or convention. A program may test whether a complex number is in polar or rectangular form, and we can form data structures such as sets of complex numbers in which individual elements can be of either form.
Hence what R calls “types” are better thought of as “classes” in the above sense. They correspond to variants (or constructors) of a single type in the Haskell sense. R is really a unityped language.
We call the type of all the classes that exist in R the universe (See Internal Structures).
Because “class” is already an overloaded term in both R and in Haskell, in the following we use the term form to refer to what the above calls a “class”.