I understand that the $ operator is for avoiding parentheses. Anything appearing after it will take precedence over anything that comes before.
I am trying to understand what it means in this context:
map ($ 3) [(+),(-),(/),(*)]
With the following code:
instance Show (a -> b) where
show a = function
main = putStrLn $ show $ map ($ 3) [(+),(-),(/),(*)]
The output is
["function", "function", "function", "function"]
This doesn't help me understand the meaning of the $ here.
How can I display more helpful output?
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b is a function that takes a function as first parameter, and a value as second and returns the value applied to that function.
For example:
Prelude> (1+) $ 2
3
The expression ($ 3) is an example of infix operator sectioning [Haskell-wiki]. ($ 3) is short for \f -> f $ 3, or simpler \f -> f 3. It thus is a function that takes a function and applies 3 to that function.
For your expression:
map ($ 3) [(+),(-),(/),(*)]
the output is thus equivalent to:
[(3+), (3-), (3/), (3*)] :: Fractional a => [a -> a]
Since (+), (-), (*) :: Num a => a -> a -> a work with types that are members of the Num typeclass, and (/) :: Fractional a => a -> a -> a works with types that are members of the Fractional type class, and all Fractional types are num types as well, 3 is here a Fractional type, and the list thus contains functions that are all of the type a -> a with a a member of Fractional.
How can I display more helpful output?
The compiler does not keep track of the expressions, as specified in the Haskell wiki page on Show instance for functions [Haskell-wiki].
The Haskell compiler doesn't maintain the expressions as they are, but translates them to machine code or some other low-level representation. The function \x -> x - x + x :: Int -> Int might have been optimized to \x -> x :: Int -> Int. If it's used anywhere, it might have been inlined and optimized to nothing. The variable name x is not stored anywhere. (...)
So we can not "look inside" the function and derive an expression that is human-readable.
Related
Is there a way in haskell to get all function arguments as a list.
Let's supose we have the following program, where we want to add the two smaller numbers and then subtract the largest. Suppose, we can't change the function definition of foo :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int. Is there a way to get all function arguments as a list, other than constructing a new list and add all arguments as an element of said list? More importantly, is there a general way of doing this independent of the number of arguments?
Example:
module Foo where
import Data.List
foo :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int
foo a b c = result!!0 + result!!1 - result!!2 where result = sort ([a, b, c])
is there a general way of doing this independent of the number of arguments?
Not really; at least it's not worth it. First off, this entire idea isn't very useful because lists are homogeneous: all elements must have the same type, so it only works for the rather unusual special case of functions which only take arguments of a single type.
Even then, the problem is that “number of arguments” isn't really a sensible concept in Haskell, because as Willem Van Onsem commented, all functions really only have one argument (further arguments are actually only given to the result of the first application, which has again function type).
That said, at least for a single argument- and final-result type, it is quite easy to pack any number of arguments into a list:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
class UsingList f where
usingList :: ([Int] -> Int) -> f
instance UsingList Int where
usingList f = f []
instance UsingList r => UsingList (Int -> r) where
usingList f a = usingList (f . (a:))
foo :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int
foo = usingList $ (\[α,β,γ] -> α + β - γ) . sort
It's also possible to make this work for any type of the arguments, using type families or a multi-param type class. What's not so simple though is to write it once and for all with variable type of the final result. The reason being, that would also have to handle a function as the type of final result. But then, that could also be intepreted as “we still need to add one more argument to the list”!
With all respect, I would disagree with #leftaroundabout's answer above. Something being
unusual is not a reason to shun it as unworthy.
It is correct that you would not be able to define a polymorphic variadic list constructor
without type annotations. However, we're not usually dealing with Haskell 98, where type
annotations were never required. With Dependent Haskell just around the corner, some
familiarity with non-trivial type annotations is becoming vital.
So, let's take a shot at this, disregarding worthiness considerations.
One way to define a function that does not seem to admit a single type is to make it a method of a
suitably constructed class. Many a trick involving type classes were devised by cunning
Haskellers, starting at least as early as 15 years ago. Even if we don't understand their
type wizardry in all its depth, we may still try our hand with a similar approach.
Let us first try to obtain a method for summing any number of Integers. That means repeatedly
applying a function like (+), with a uniform type such as a -> a -> a. Here's one way to do
it:
class Eval a where
eval :: Integer -> a
instance (Eval a) => Eval (Integer -> a) where
eval i = \y -> eval (i + y)
instance Eval Integer where
eval i = i
And this is the extract from repl:
λ eval 1 2 3 :: Integer
6
Notice that we can't do without explicit type annotation, because the very idea of our approach is
that an expression eval x1 ... xn may either be a function that waits for yet another argument,
or a final value.
One generalization now is to actually make a list of values. The science tells us that
we may derive any monoid from a list. Indeed, insofar as sum is a monoid, we may turn arguments to
a list, then sum it and obtain the same result as above.
Here's how we can go about turning arguments of our method to a list:
class Eval a where
eval2 :: [Integer] -> Integer -> a
instance (Eval a) => Eval (Integer -> a) where
eval2 is i = \j -> eval2 (i:is) j
instance Eval [Integer] where
eval2 is i = i:is
This is how it would work:
λ eval2 [] 1 2 3 4 5 :: [Integer]
[5,4,3,2,1]
Unfortunately, we have to make eval binary, rather than unary, because it now has to compose two
different things: a (possibly empty) list of values and the next value to put in. Notice how it's
similar to the usual foldr:
λ foldr (:) [] [1,2,3,4,5]
[1,2,3,4,5]
The next generalization we'd like to have is allowing arbitrary types inside the list. It's a bit
tricky, as we have to make Eval a 2-parameter type class:
class Eval a i where
eval2 :: [i] -> i -> a
instance (Eval a i) => Eval (i -> a) i where
eval2 is i = \j -> eval2 (i:is) j
instance Eval [i] i where
eval2 is i = i:is
It works as the previous with Integers, but it can also carry any other type, even a function:
(I'm sorry for the messy example. I had to show a function somehow.)
λ ($ 10) <$> (eval2 [] (+1) (subtract 2) (*3) (^4) :: [Integer -> Integer])
[10000,30,8,11]
So far so good: we can convert any number of arguments into a list. However, it will be hard to
compose this function with the one that would do useful work with the resulting list, because
composition only admits unary functions − with some trickery, binary ones, but in no way the
variadic. Seems like we'll have to define our own way to compose functions. That's how I see it:
class Ap a i r where
apply :: ([i] -> r) -> [i] -> i -> a
apply', ($...) :: ([i] -> r) -> i -> a
($...) = apply'
instance Ap a i r => Ap (i -> a) i r where
apply f xs x = \y -> apply f (x:xs) y
apply' f x = \y -> apply f [x] y
instance Ap r i r where
apply f xs x = f $ x:xs
apply' f x = f [x]
Now we can write our desired function as an application of a list-admitting function to any number
of arguments:
foo' :: (Num r, Ord r, Ap a r r) => r -> a
foo' = (g $...)
where f = (\result -> (result !! 0) + (result !! 1) - (result !! 2))
g = f . sort
You'll still have to type annotate it at every call site, like this:
λ foo' 4 5 10 :: Integer
-1
− But so far, that's the best I can do.
The more I study Haskell, the more I am certain that nothing is impossible.
I'm still a beginner when it comes to Haskell syntax and functional programming languages so when I look at the type declaration for Data.Function.on which is on :: (b -> b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> a -> c, my interpretation is that it takes four parameters: (b -> b -> c), (a -> b), a, a, and returns c. However, when I look at the general use syntax for Data.Function.on which is (*) `on` f = \x y -> f x * f y, it is only taking two function parameters, not four, so how does the type signature relate to the usage syntax?
my interpretation is that it takes four parameters
All Haskell functions take one argument. Some of them just return other functions.
The best way to look at the signature for on is as a higher-order function: (b -> b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> a -> c). This says "if you give me a binary operator that takes bs and gives a c and a way to get bs from as, I will give you a binary operator that takes as and gives a c". You can see this in the definition:
(*) `on` f = \x y -> f x * f y
The Haskell arrow for function types hides a simple but clever idea. You have to think of -> as an operator, like + and -, but for types. It takes two types as arguments and gives you a new type consisting of a function. So in
Int -> String
You have the types Int and String, and you get a function from an Int to a String.
Just like any other operator, you need a rule for a chain of them. If you think of -, what does this mean?
10 - 6 - 4
Does it mean (10 - 6) - 4 = 0, or does it mean 10 - (6 - 4) = 8? The answer is the first one, which is why we say that - is "left associative".
The -> operator is right associative, so
foo :: Int -> String -> String
actually means
foo :: Int -> (String -> String)
Think about what this means. It means that foo doesn't take 2 arguments and return a result of type String, it actually takes 1 argument (the Int) and returns a new function that takes the second argument (the String) and returns the final String.
Function application works the same way, except that is left associative. So
foo 15 "wibble"
actually means
(foo 15) "wibble"
So foo is applied to 15 and returns a new function which is then applied to "wibble".
This leads to a neat trick: instead of having to provide all the parameters when you call a function (as you do in just about every other programming language), you can just provide the first one or the first few, and get back a new function that expects the rest of the parameters.
This is what is happening with on. I'll use a more concrete version where 'f' is replaced by 'length'.
(*) on length
you give on its first two parameters. The result is a new function that expects the other two. In types,
on :: (b -> b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> a -> c
In this case (*) has type Num n => n -> n -> n (I'm using different letters to make this less confusing), so that is matched with the type of the first argument to on, leading to the conclusion that if type b is substitued by n then type c must be as well, and and must also be a Num instance. Therefore length must return some numeric type. As it happens the type of length is [d] -> Int, and Int is an instance of Num, so that works out. So at the end of this you get:
(*) `on` length :: [d] -> [d] -> Int
As an intuitive aid, I read this as "if you give me a comparator of type b, and a way to extract values of type b from values of type a, I will give you a comparator of type a".
E.g. if a is some composite data type and b is some numerical attribute of these data values, you can express the idea of sorting these composite data types by using Data.Function.on.
This question already has answers here:
Understanding Haskell Type Signatures
(3 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I need to understand how types works and can be interpreted.
For example, if we take map function we have map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Well, how do I interpret this?
-> is a type constructor for the type of functions. It's a right-associative infix operator, meaning it's grouped together from the right. This means that we can rewrite the type by adding explicit grouping for the functions to the right side.
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b])
An infix expression for an operator * applied to two arguments, x and y, x * y can be written in prefix notation as (*) a b. We can rewrite the preceding type, starting with the outermost ->, which is the one in the middle.
map :: (->) (a -> b) ([a] -> [b])
And we can now translate the last type into English
map :: (->) (a -> b) ([a] -> [b])
map is a function that takes a "(a -> b)" and returns a "([a] -> [b])"
Where we interpret a -> b ~ (->) a b (here ~ means the types are equivalent) as
(->) a b
function that takes an "a" and return a "b"
And interpret [a] -> [b] ~ (->) [a] [b] as
(->) [ a ] [ b ]
function that takes a list of "a"s and returns a list of "b"s
We say "a function from a to b" as shorthand for "a function that takes an a and returns a b"
The as and bs in the type signature are type variables, they can take on any type, which we call polymorphism. Occasionally, you will see this written explicitly in Haskell as forall So, in all we could say:
map is a polymorphic value for all types a and b which is a function that:
takes a function from a to b and
returns a function from a lists of as to a list of bs.
The fact that this signature contains -> tells us it's a function. Whatever comes after the last -> is the return type of the function once fully applied. Let's look at the individual pieces.
(a -> b)
This is the first argument, and it, too is a function. This means that map is a higher-order-function -- it takes a function as one of its arguments. a -> b itself is a function that transforms some value of type a into some value of type b.
[a]
The second argument. The square brackets is special syntax that denotes list. This argument, therefore, is a list with elements of type a.
[b]
The type of the result. Again, a list, but this time with elements of type b.
We can try to reason about this now. Given a function a -> b and a list of a, map seems to be (it really is) a function that transforms that list of as into a list of bs.
Here's an example: map (*2) [1,2,3]. In this case, a is Integer (or some other integer type) and each element is doubled. b, too, is Integer, because (*2) assumes the same return type, so in the case the type variables a and b are the same. This need not be the case; we could have a different function instead of (*2), say show which would have produced a b distinct from a, namely String.
Try them out in ghci. You can type in map show [1,2,3] directly and see the result. You can query the type of the expression by prepending :t to that line.
To learn more, you should look up one of the marvelous starter resources. LYAH has an entire chapter dedicated to the basic understanding of types, and is definitely worth a read!
I am in the process of teaching myself Haskell and I was wondering about the following type signatures:
Prelude> :t ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
Prelude>
How should I interpret (no pun intended) that?
A semi-similar result is also proving to be puzzling:
Prelude> :t map
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Prelude>
I'll start with map. The map function applies an operation to every element in a list. If I had
add3 :: Int -> Int
add3 x = x + 3
Then I could apply this to a whole list of Ints using map:
> map add3 [1, 2, 3, 4]
[4, 5, 6, 7]
So if you look at the type signature
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
You'll see that the first argument is (a -> b), which is just a function that takes an a and returns a b. The second argument is [a], which is a list of values of type a, and the return type [b], a list of values of type b. So in plain english, the map function applies a function to each element in a list of values, then returns the those values as a list.
This is what makes map a higher order function, it takes a function as an argument and does stuff with it. Another way to look at map is to add some parentheses to the type signature to make it
map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b])
So you can also think of it as a function that transforms a function from a to b into a function from [a] to [b].
The function ($) has the type
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
And is used like
> add3 $ 1 + 1
5
All it does is take what's to the right, in this case 1 + 1, and passes it to the function on the left, here add3. Why is this important? It has a handy fixity, or operator precedence, that makes it equivalent to
> add3 (1 + 1)
So whatever to the right gets essentially wrapped in parentheses before being passed to the left. This just makes it useful for chaining several functions together:
> add3 $ add3 $ add3 $ add3 $ 1 + 1
is nicer than
> add3 (add3 (add3 (add3 (1 + 1))))
because you don't have to close parentheses.
Well, as said already, $ can be easily understood if you just forget about currying and see it like, say, in C++
template<typename A, typename B>
B dollar(std::function<B(A)> f, A x) {
return f(x);
}
But actually, there is more to this than just applying a function to a value! The apparent similarity between the signatures of $ and map has in fact a pretty deep category-theory meaning: both are examples of the morphism-action of a functor!
In the category Hask that we work with all the time, objects are types. (That is a bit confusionsome, but don't worry). The morphisms are functions.
The most well-known (endo-)functors are those which have an instance of the eponymous type class. But actually, mathematically, a functor is only something that maps both objects to objects and morphisms to morphisms1. map (pun intended, I suppose!) is an example: it takes an object (i.e. type) A and maps it to a type [A]. And, for any two types A and B, it takes a morphism (i.e. function) A -> B, and maps it to the corresponding list-function of type [A] -> [B].
This is just a special case of the functor class signature operation:
fmap :: Functor f => (a->b) -> (f a->f b)
Mathematics doesn't require this fmap to have a name though. And so there can be also the identity functor, which simply assigns any type to itself. And, every morphism to itself:
($) :: (a->b) -> (a->b)
"Identity" exists obviously more generally, you can also map values of any type to themselves.
id :: a -> a
id x = x
And sure enough, a possible implementation is then
($) = id
1Mind, not anything that maps objects and morphisms is a functor... it does need to satisfy the functor laws.
($) is just function application. It gets a function of type a->b, an argument of type a, applies the function and returns a value of type b.
map is a wonderful example for how reading a function type signature helps understanding it. map's first argument is a function that takes a and returns b, and its second argument is a list of type [a].
So map applies a function of type a->b to a list of a values. And the result type is indeed of type [b] - a list of b values!
(a->b)->[a]->[b] can be interpreted as "Accepts a function and a list and returns another list", and also as "Accepts a function of type a->b and returns another function of type [a]->[b]".
When you look at it this way, map "upgrade" f (the term "lift" is often used in this context) to work on lists: if double is a function that doubles an integer, then map double is a function that double every integer in a list.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why is such a function definition not allowed in haskell?
I made a haskell function called funlist. What it does is it takes a starting value, and a list of functions, and applies all of the functions in the list to the starting value.
funlist thing [function] = function thing
funlist thing (function:functions) = funlist (function thing) functions
funlist _ _ = error "need a list of functions"
The problem with this function is that it has a type of funlist :: t -> [t -> t] -> t. That type means that while ghc will allow a list of functions that don't convert the starting value to a completely different type (e.g [sin,cos,tan] will be allowed), a function that converts the starting value to a different type (e.g show) will generate an error because that function doesn't match the type signature.
This isn't how the function should work. It should be able to take a list of functions that change the starting values type (e.g. [sin,show]). This function basically converts funlist 5 [sin,cos,tan,isInfinite,show] to show $ isInfinite $ tan $ cos $ sin $ 5, and while the latter works, the former doesn't.
Is there any way that I can get this function to work properly?
EDIT: I know about . and >>>, I'm just wondering if there's a way to make this work.
You can write what you want with a GADT:
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
module Funlist where
data F x y where
Id :: F a a
Ap :: (a->b) -> F b c -> F a c
-- A very round about way to write f x = x + x
f1 :: Int -> Char
f1 = toEnum
f2 :: Char -> String
f2 x = x:x:[]
f3 :: String -> [Int]
f3 = map fromEnum
f4 :: [Int] -> Integer
f4 = foldr (+) 0 . map toInteger
f_list :: F Int Integer
f_list = Ap f1 (Ap f2 (Ap f3 (Ap f4 Id)))
ap :: F a b -> a -> b
ap Id x = x
ap (Ap f gs) x = ap gs (f x)
Now ap f_list 65 is 130
This does not work with normal functions/normal lists in Haskell, since it requires a dynamically typed language, and not a statically typed language like Haskell. The funlist function can't have a different type depending on what the contents of the function list is at runtime; its type must be known at compile-time. Further, the compiler must be able to check that the function chain is valid, so that you can't use the list [tan, show, sin] for example.
There are two solutions to this problem.
You can either use heterogenous lists. These lists can store lists where each element is a different type. You can then check the constraint that each element must be a function and that one elements return type must be the next function's parameter type. This can become very difficult very quickly.
You can also use Data.Dynamic to let your functions take and return dynamic types. You have to perform some dynamic type casts in that case.
If all you're going to do with this list of functions is apply them to a single value in a pipeline, then instead of writing and calling your funlist function, do this:
show . isInfinite . tan . cos . sin $ 5
or, if you don't want the list reversed in your code, do this:
import Control.Arrow (>>>)
(sin >>> cos >>> tan >>> isInfinite >>> show) 5
Functions in Haskell, in general, have types that look like a -> b, for some choice of a and b. In your case, you have a list [f0, ..., fn] of functions, and you want to compute this:
funlist [f0, ..., fn] x == f0 (funlist [f1, ..., fn] x)
== f0 (f1 (funlist [f2, ..., fn] x))
...
== f0 (f1 (... (fn x)))
The t -> t problem you're having is a consequence of these two things:
This computation requires the argument type of f0 to be the return type of f1, the argument type of f1 to be the return type of f2, and so on: f0 :: y -> z, f1 :: x -> y, ..., fn :: a -> b.
But you're putting all those functions in a list, and all the elements of a list in Haskell must have the same type.
These two, taken together, imply that the list of functions used in funlist must have type [t -> t], because that's the only way both conditions can be met at the same time.
Other than that, dave4420's answer is the best simple answer, IMO: use function composition. If you can't use it because the computation to be done is only known at runtime, then you want to have some data structure more complex than the list to represent the possible computations. Chris Kuklewicz presents a very generic solution for that, but I'd normally do something custom-made for the specific problem area at hand.
Also good to know that your funlist can be written like this:
funlist :: a -> [a -> a] -> a
funlist x fs = foldr (.) id fs x
Short answer: No, there's no way to do what you want with lists (in a sensible way, at least).
The reason is that lists in Haskell are always homogenous, i.e. each element of a list must have the same type. The functions you want to put to the list have types:
sin :: Floating a => a -> a
isInfinite :: Floating b => b -> Bool
show :: Show c => c -> String
So you can't just put the functions in the same list. Your two main options are to:
Use a structure other than list (e.g. HList or a custom GADT)
Use dynamic typing
Since the other answers already gave GADT examples, here's how you could implement your function using dynamic types:
import Data.Dynamic
funlist :: Dynamic -> [Dynamic] -> Dynamic
funlist thing (function:functions) = funlist (dynApp function thing) functions
funlist thing [] = thing
However, using dynamic types causes some boilerplate, because you have to convert between static and dynamic types. So, to call the function, you'd need to write
funlist (toDyn 5) [toDyn sin, toDyn cos, toDyn tan, toDyn isInfinite, toDyn show]
And unfortunately, even that is not enough. The next problem is that dynamic values must have homomorphic types, so for example instead of the function show :: Show a => a -> String you need to manually specify e.g. the concrete type show :: Bool -> String, so the above becomes:
funlist (toDyn (5::Double)) [toDyn sin, toDyn cos, toDyn tan, toDyn isInfinite,
toDyn (show :: Bool -> String)]
What's more, the result of the function is another dynamic value, so we need to convert it back to a static value if we want to use it in regular functions.
fromDyn (funlist (toDyn (5::Double)) [toDyn sin, toDyn cos, toDyn tan,
toDyn isInfinite, toDyn (show :: Bool -> String)]) ""
What you want works in Haskell, but it's not a list. It is a function composition and can actually be wrapped in a GADT:
import Control.Arrow
import Control.Category
import Prelude hiding ((.), id)
data Chain :: * -> * -> * where
Chain :: (a -> c) -> Chain c b -> Chain a b
Id :: Chain a a
apply :: Chain a b -> a -> b
apply (Chain f k) x = apply k (f x)
apply Id x = x
Now you can inspect the structure of the function chain to some extent. There isn't much you can find out, but you can add further meta information to the Chain constructor, if you need more.
The type also forms an interesting category that preserves the additional information:
instance Category Chain where
id = Id
Id . c = c
c . Id = c
c2 . Chain f1 k1 = Chain f1 (c2 . k1)
instance Arrow Chain where
arr f = Chain f Id
first (Chain f c) = Chain (first f) (first c)
first Id = Id
There where some answers using GADTs, which is a good way to do such things. What I want to add here is that the structure used in these answers already exists in a more general fashion: it's called a thrist ("type threaded list"):
Prelude Data.Thrist> let fs = Cons (show :: Char -> String) (Cons length Nil)
Prelude Data.Thrist> let f = foldl1Thrist (flip (.)) fs
Prelude Data.Thrist> :t fs
fs :: Thrist (->) Char Int
Prelude Data.Thrist> :t f
f :: Char -> Int
Prelude Data.Thrist> f 'a'
3
Of course, you could also use foldl1Thrist (>>>) fs instead. Note that thrists form a category, an arrow and a monoid (with appendThrist).