I have function fun1 that is not IO and can be computationally expensive, so I want to run it for a specified amount of seconds max. I found a function timeout, but it requires this fun1 to be of IO.
timeout :: Int -> IO a -> IO (Maybe a)
How can I circumvent this, or is there a better approach to achieve my goal?
Edit:
I revised first sentence fun1 is NOT IO, it is of type fun1 :: Formula -> Bool.
Close to what talex said except moving the seq should work. Here is an example using inefficient fib as the expensive computation.
Prelude> import System.Timeout
Prelude System.Timeout> :{
Prelude System.Timeout| let fib 0 = 0
Prelude System.Timeout| fib 1 = 1
Prelude System.Timeout| fib n = fib (n-1) + fib (n-2)
Prelude System.Timeout| :}
Prelude System.Timeout> timeout 1000000 (let x = fib 44 in x `seq` return x)
Nothing
Prelude System.Timeout>
evaluate has better exceptional behavior than x `seq` return x.Limiting function execution to a specific time length is not pure (i.e. it does not ensure the same result every time), hence you should not be pursuing such behavior outside of IO. You can, for example, use something evil like unsafePerformIO (timeout 1000 (pure fun1)) but such usage will quickly lead to programs that are hard to understand with unexpected quirks. A better idea may be to define a custom monad that allows limited time execution and can be lifted to IO but I don't know if such a thing exists.
import System.Timeout (timeout)
import Control.Exception (evaluate)
import Control.DeepSeq (NFData, force)
timeoutPure :: Int -> a -> IO (Maybe a)
timeoutPure t = timeout t . evaluate
timeoutPureDeep :: NFData a => Int -> a -> IO (Maybe a)
timeoutPureDeep t = timeoutPure t . force
You may not want to actually write these functions, but they demonstrate the right approach. evaluate is better than seq for this sort of thing, because seq can potentially be moved around by the compiler, escaping the timeout. I'm not sure if that's actually possible in this case, but it's better to just do the thing that's sure to work than to try to analyze carefully whether the riskier approach is okay.
