Add images to time traveling post.

content/blog/haskell_lazy_evaluation/index.md

@@ -5,6 +5,11 @@ tags: ["Haskell"]
 draft: true
 ---
 
+<style>
+img, figure.small img { max-height: 20rem; }
+figure.medium img { max-height: 30rem; }
+</style>
+
 I recently got to use a very curious Haskell technique
 {{< sidenote "right" "production-note" "in production:" >}}
 As production as research code gets, anyway!
@@ -126,7 +131,7 @@ length ((:) 1 [])
 We're now ready to draw the graph; in this case, it's pretty much identical
 to the syntax tree of the last form of our expression:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="length_1.png" caption="The initial graph of `length [1]`." >}}
 
 In this image, the `@` nodes represent function application. The
 root node is an application of the function `length` to the graph that
@@ -137,7 +142,7 @@ list, and function applications in Haskell are
 in the process of evaluation, the body of `length` will be reached,
 and leave us with the following graph:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="length_2.png" caption="The graph of `length [1]` after the body of `length` is expanded." >}}
 
 Conceptually, we only took one reduction step, and thus, we haven't yet gotten
 to evaluating the recursive call to `length`. Since `(+)`
@@ -169,15 +174,15 @@ let x = square 5 in x + x
 
 Here, the initial graph looks as follows:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="square_1.png" caption="The initial graph of `let x = square 5 in x + x`." >}}
 
-As you can see, this _is_ a graph, not a tree! Since both
+As you can see, this _is_ a graph, but not a tree! Since both
 variables `x` refer to the same expression, `square 5`, they
 are represented by the same subgraph. Then, when we evaluate `square 5`
 for the first time, and replace its root node with an indirection,
 we end up with the following:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="square_2.png" caption="The graph of `let x = square 5 in x + x` after `square 5` is reduced." >}}
 
 There are two `25`s in the tree, and no more `square`s! We only
 had to evaluate `square 5` exactly once, even though `(+)`
@@ -202,14 +207,14 @@ fix f = let x = f x in x
 See how the definition of `x` refers to itself? This is what
 it looks like in graph form:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="fixpoint_1.png" caption="The initial graph of `let x = f x in x`." >}}
 
 I think it's useful to take a look at how this graph is processed. Let's
 pick `f = (1:)`. That is, `f` is a function that takes a list,
 and prepends `1` to it. Then, after constructing the graph of `f x`,
 we end up with the following:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="fixpoint_2.png" caption="The graph of `fix (1:)` after it's been reduced." >}}
 
 We see the body of `f`, which is the application of `(:)` first to the
 constant `1`, and then to `f`'s argument (`x`, in this case). As
@@ -247,11 +252,11 @@ of using application nodes `@`, let's draw an application of a
 function `f` to arguments `x1` through `xn` as a subgraph with root `f`
 and children `x`s. The below figure demonstrates what I mean:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="notation.png" caption="The new visual notation used in this section." >}}
 
 Now, let's write the initial graph for `doRepMax [1,2]`:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_1.png" caption="The initial graph of `doRepMax [1,2]`." >}}
 
 Other than our new notation, there's nothing too surprising here.
 At a high level, all we want is the second element of the tuple
@@ -263,7 +268,7 @@ The first step
 of our hypothetical reduction would replace the application of `doRepMax` with its
 body, and create our graph's first cycle:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_2.png" caption="The first step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." >}}
 
 Next, we would do the same for the body of `repMax`. In
 the following diagram, to avoid drawing a noisy amount of
@@ -273,7 +278,7 @@ edges to similar looking stars. This is merely
 a visual trick; an edge leading to a little star is
 actually an edge leading to `fst`. Take a look:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_3.png" caption="The second step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 Since `(,)` is a constructor, let's say that it doesn't
 need to be evaluated, and that its
@@ -289,9 +294,11 @@ thus replace the application of `snd` with an
 indirection to this subgraph. This leaves us
 with the following:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_4.png" caption="The third step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
-If our original `doRepMax [1, 2]` expression occured at the top level,
+Since it's becoming hard to keep track of what part of the graph
+is actually being evaluated, I marked the former root of `doRepMax [1,2]` with
+a blue star. If our original expression occured at the top level,
 the graph reduction would probably stop here.  After all,
 we're evaluating our graphs using call-by-need, and there
 doesn't seem to be a need for knowing the what the arguments of `(:)` are.
@@ -307,7 +314,7 @@ of `fst`. We evaluate it in a similar manner to `snd`. That is,
 we replace this `fst` with an indirection to the first element
 of the argument tuple, which happens to be the subgraph starting with `max`:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_5.png" caption="The fourth step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 Phew! Next, we need to evaluate the body of `max`. Let's make one more
 simplification here: rather than substitututing `max` for its body
@@ -319,23 +326,23 @@ a call to `fst`, needs to be processed. To do so, we need to
 evaluate the call to `repMax`. We thus replace `repMax`
 with its body:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_6.png" caption="The fifth step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 We've reached one of the base cases here, and there
 are no more calls to `max` or `repMax`. The whole reason
 we're here is to evaluate the call to `fst` that's one
-of the arguments to `max`. Given this graph, this is easy.
+of the arguments to `max`. Given this graph, doing so is easy.
 We can clearly see that `2` is the first element of the tuple
 returned by `repMax [2]`. We thus replace `fst` with
 an indirection to this node:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_7.png" caption="The sixth step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 This concludes our task of evaluating the arguments to `max`.
 Comparing them, we see that `2` is greater than `1`, and thus,
 we replace `max` with an indirection to `2`:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_8.png" caption="The seventh step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 The node that we starred in our graph is now an indirection (the
 one that used to be the call to `fst`) which points to
@@ -351,7 +358,7 @@ which is the call to `snd`. This `snd` is applied to an instance of `(,)`, which
 can't be reduced any further. Thus, all we have to do is take the second
 element of the tuple, and replace `snd` with an indirection to it:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_9.png" caption="The eighth step of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." class="medium" >}}
 
 The second element of the tuple was a call to `(:)`, and that's what the mysterious
 force is processing now. Just like it did before, it starts by looking at the
@@ -362,10 +369,10 @@ Another `2` pops up on the console.
 Finally, the mysterious force reaches the second argument of the `(:)`,
 which is the empty list. The empty list also cannot be evaluated any
 further, so that's what the mysterious force receives. Just like that,
-there's nothing left to print to the console. The mysterious force ceases,
-and we're left with the following graph:
+there's nothing left to print to the console. The mysterious force ceases.
+After removing the unused nodes, we are left with the following graph:
 
-{{< todo >}}Add image!{{< /todo >}}
+{{< figure src="repmax_10.png" caption="The result of reducing `doRepMax [1,2]`." >}}
 
 As we would have expected, two `2`s are printed to the console.