I am struggling to understand why this code taken from the haskell.org exercise page typechecks (and works as a list reversal function):
myReverse :: [a] -> [a]
myReverse xs = foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id xs []
My first point of confusion is that foldr accepts 3 arguments, not 4 :
foldr :: Foldable t => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b
so I am guessing that myReverse is equivalent to:
myReverse xs = foldr ((\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id) xs []
but then this should not work either since in the lambda, x is a list element rather than a function ...
Think of it this way. Every function accepts exactly one argument. It may return another function (that accepts one argument). The thing that looks like a multi-argument call
f a b c
is actually parsed as
((f a) b) c
that is, a chain of single-argument function applications. A function type
f :: a -> b -> c -> d
can be decomposed to
f :: a -> (b -> (c -> d))
i.e. a function returning a function returning a function. We usually regard it as a function of three arguments. But can it accept more than three? Yes, if d happens to be another function type.
This is exactly what happens with your fold example. The function that you pass as the first argument to foldr accepts three arguments, which is exactly the same as accepting two arguments and returning another function. Now the (simplified) type of foldr is
(a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
but if you look at the first argument of it, you see it's a function of three arguments. Which is, as we have seen, exactly the same as a function that acceora two arguments and returns a function. So the b happens to be a function type. Since b is also the the return tuoe of foldr when applied to three arguments
foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id
and it's a function, it can now be applied to another argument
(foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id xs) []
I let you figure out what b actually is.
First of all the variables naming is atrocious. I always use r for the second argument to a foldr's reducer function, as a mnemonic for the "recursive result". "empty" is too overloaded with meaning; it is better to use some neutral name so it is easier to see what it is without any preconceived notions:
myReverse :: [a] -> [a]
myReverse xs = foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id xs []
By virtue of foldr's definition,
foldr f z (x:xs) === f x (foldr f z xs)
i.e.
myReverse [a,b,c,...,z]
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [a,b,c,...,z] []
= (\x r n -> r (x : n)) a (foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [b,c,...,z]) []
= (\x r n -> r (x : n))
a
(foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [b,c,...,z])
[]
= let { x = a
; r = foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [b,c,...,z]
; n = []
}
in r (x : n)
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [b,c,...,z] (a : [])
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [b,c,...,z] [a]
= ....
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [c,...,z] (b : [a])
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [c,...,z] [b,a]
= ....
= foldr (\x r n -> r (x : n)) id [] [z,...,c,b,a]
= id [z,...,c,b,a]
I hope this illustration makes it clearer what is going on there. The extra argument is expected by the reducer function, which is pushed into action by foldr ... resulting in the operational equivalent of
= foldl (\n x -> (x : n)) [] [a,b,c,...,z]
As it turns out, myReverse implementation is using the equivalence
foldl (flip f) n xs === foldr (\x r -> r . f x) id xs n
Related
Given
> foldr (+) 5 [1,2,3,4]
15
this second version
foldr (\x n -> x + n) 5 [1,2,3,4]
also returns 15. The first thing I don't understand about the second version is how foldr knows which variable is associated with the accumulator-seed 5 and which with the list variable's elements [1,2,3,4]. In the lambda calculus way, x would seem to be the dependent variable and n the independent variable. So if this
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
foldr _ z [] = z
foldr f z (x:xs) = f x (foldr f z xs)
is foldr and these
:type foldr
foldr :: Foldable t => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b
:t +d foldr
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
its type declarations, can I glean, deduce the answer to "which is dependent and which is independent" from the type declaration itself? It would seem both examples of foldr above must be doing this
(+) 1 ((+) 2 ((+) 3 ((+) 4 ((+) 5 0))))
I simply guessed the second, lambda function version above, but I don't really understand how it works, whereas the first version with (+) breaks down as shown directly above.
Another example would be this
length' = foldr (const (1+)) 0
where, again, const seems to know to "throw out" the incoming list elements and simply increment, starting with the initial accumulator value. This is the same as
length' = foldr (\_ acc -> 1 + acc) 0
where, again, Haskell knows which of foldr's second and third arguments -- accumulator and list -- to treat as the dependent and independent variable, seemingly by magic. But no, I'm sure the answer lies in the type declaration (which I can't decipher, hence, this post), as well as the lore of lambda calculus, of which I'm a beginner.
Update
I've found this
reverse = foldl (flip (:)) []
and then applying to a list
foldl (flip (:)) [] [1,2,3]
foldl (flip (:)) (1:[]) [2,3]
foldl (flip (:)) (2:1:[]) [3]
foldl (flip (:)) (3:2:1:[]) []
. . .
Here it's obvious that the order is "accumulator" and then list, and flip is flipping the first and second variables, then subjecting them to (:). Again, this
reverse = foldl (\acc x -> x : acc) []
foldl (\acc x -> x : acc) [] [1,2,3]
foldl (\acc x -> x : acc) (1:[]) [1,2,3]
. . .
seems also to rely on order, but in the example from further above
length' = foldr (\_ acc -> 1 + acc) 0
foldr (\_ acc -> 1 + acc) 0 [1,2,3]
how does it know 0 is the accumulator and is bound to acc and not the first (ghost) variable? So as I understand (the first five pages of) lambda calculus, any variable that is "lambda'd," e.g., \x is a dependent variable, and all other non-lambda'd variables are independent. Above, the \_ is associated with [1,2,3] and the acc, ostensibly the independent variable, is 0; hence, order is not dictating assignment. It's as if acc was some keyword that when used always binds to the accumulator, while x is always talking about the incoming list members.
Also, what is the "algebra" in the type definition where t a is transformed to [a]? Is this something from category theory? I see
Data.Foldable.toList :: t a -> [a]
in the Foldable definition. Is that all it is?
By "dependent" you most probably mean bound variable.
By "independent" you most probably mean free (i.e. not bound) variable.
There are no free variables in (\x n -> x + n). Both x and n appear to the left of the arrow, ->, so they are named parameters of this lambda function, bound inside its body, to the right of the arrow. Being bound means that each reference to n, say, in the function's body is replaced with the reference to the corresponding argument when this lambda function is indeed applied to its argument(s).
Similarly both _ and acc are bound in (\_ acc -> 1 + acc)'s body. The fact that the wildcard is used here, is immaterial. We could just have written _we_dont_care_ all the same.
The parameters in lambda function definition get "assigned" (also called "bound") the values of the arguments in an application, purely positionally. The first argument will be bound / assigned to the first parameter, the second argument - to the second parameter. Then the lambda function's body will be entered and further reduced according to the rules.
This can be seen a bit differently stating that actually in lambda calculus all functions have only one parameter, and multi-parameter functions are actually nested uni-parameter lambda functions; and that the application is left-associative i.e. nested to the left.
What this actually means is quite simply
(\ x n -> x + n) 5 0
=
(\ x -> (\ n -> x + n)) 5 0
=
((\ x -> (\ n -> x + n)) 5) 0
=
(\ n -> 5 + n) 0
=
5 + 0
As to how Haskell knows which is which from the type signatures, again, the type variables in the functional types are also positional, with first type variable corresponding to the type of the first expected argument, the second type variable to the second expected argument's type, and so on.
It is all purely positional.
Thus, as a matter of purely mechanical and careful substitution, since by the definition of foldr it holds that foldr g 0 [1,2,3] = g 1 (foldr g 0 [2,3]) = ... = g 1 (g 2 (g 3 0)), we have
foldr (\x n -> x + n) 0 [1,2,3]
=
(\x n -> x + n) 1 ( (\x n -> x + n) 2 ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
=
(\x -> (\n -> x + n)) 1 ( (\x n -> x + n) 2 ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
=
(\n -> 1 + n) ( (\x n -> x + n) 2 ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
=
1 + ( (\x n -> x + n) 2 ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
=
1 + ( (\x (\n -> x + n)) 2 ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
=
1 + (\n -> 2 + n) ( (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 )
=
1 + (2 + (\x n -> x + n) 3 0 )
=
1 + (2 + (\x -> (\n -> x + n)) 3 0 )
=
1 + (2 + (\n -> 3 + n) 0 )
=
1 + (2 + ( 3 + 0))
In other words, there is absolutely no difference between (\x n -> x + n) and (+).
As for that t in foldr :: Foldable t => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b, what that means is that given a certain type T a, if instance Foldable T exists, then the type becomes foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> T a -> b, when it's used with a value of type T a.
One example is Maybe a and thus foldr (g :: a -> b -> b) (z :: b) :: Maybe a -> b.
Another example is [] a and thus foldr (g :: a -> b -> b) (z :: b) :: [a] -> b.
(edit:) So let's focus on lists. What does it mean for a function foo to have that type,
foo :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
? It means that it expects an argument of type a -> b -> b, i.e. a function, let's call it g, so that
foo :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
g :: a -> b -> b
-------------------------------------
foo g :: b -> [a] -> b
which is itself a function, expecting of some argument z of type b, so that
foo :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
g :: a -> b -> b
z :: b
-------------------------------------
foo g z :: [a] -> b
which is itself a function, expecting of some argument xs of type [a], so that
foo :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
g :: a -> b -> b
z :: b
xs :: [a]
-------------------------------------
foo g z xs :: b
And what could such function foo g z do, given a list, say, [x] (i.e. x :: a, [x] :: [a])?
foo g z [x] = b where
We need to produce a b value, but how? Well, g :: a -> b -> b produces a function b -> b given an value of type a. Wait, we have that!
f = g x -- f :: b -> b
and what does it help us? Well, we have z :: b, so
b = f z
And what if it's [] we're given? We don't have any as then at all, but we have a b type value, z -- so instead of the above we'd just define
b = z
And what if it's [x,y] we're given? We'll do the same f-building trick, twice:
f1 = g x -- f1 :: b -> b
f2 = g y -- f2 :: b -> b
and to produce b we have many options now: it's z! or maybe, it's f1 z!? or f2 z? But the most general thing we can do, making use of all the data we have access to, is
b = f1 (f2 z)
for a right-fold (...... or,
b = f2 (f1 z)
for a left).
And if we substitute and simplify, we get
foldr g z [] = z
foldr g z [x] = g x z -- = g x (foldr g z [])
foldr g z [x,y] = g x (g y z) -- = g x (foldr g z [y])
foldr g z [x,y,w] = g x (g y (g w z)) -- = g x (foldr g z [y,w])
A pattern emerges.
Etc., etc., etc.
A sidenote: b is a bad naming choice, as is usual in Haskell. r would be much much better -- a mnemonic for "recursive result".
Another mnemonic is the order of g's arguments: a -> r -> r suggests, nay dictates, that a list's element a comes as a first argument; r the recursive result comes second (the Result of Recursively processing the Rest of the input list -- recursively, thus in the same manner); and the overall result is then produced by this "step"-function, g.
And that's the essence of recursion: recursively process self-similar sub-part(s) of the input structure, and complete the processing by a simple single step:
a a
: `g`
[a] r
------------- -------------
[a] r
[a]
a [a]
--------
(x : xs) -> r
xs -> r
----------------------
( x , r ) -> r --- or, equivalently, x -> r -> r
Well, the foldr itself knows this by definition. It was defined in such way that its function argument accepts the accumulator as 2nd argument.
Just like when you write a div x y = ... function you are free to use y as dividend.
Maybe you got confused by the fact that foldr and foldl has swapped arguments in the accumulator funtions?
As Steven Leiva says here, a foldr (1) takes a list and replaces the cons operators (:) with the given function and (2) replaces the last empty list [] with the accumulator-seed, which is what the definition of foldr says it will do
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
foldr _ z [] = z
foldr f z (x:xs) = f x (foldr f z xs)
So de-sugared [1,2,3] is
(:) 1 ((:) 2 ((:) 3 []))
and the recursion is in effect replacing the (:) with f, and as we see in foldr f z (x:xs) = f x (foldr f z xs), the z seed value is going along for the ride until the base case where it is substituted for the [], fulfilling (1) and (2) above.
My first confusion was seeing this
foldr (\x n -> x + n) 0 [1,2,3]
and not understanding it would be expanded out, per definition above, to
(\x n -> x + n) 1 ((\x n -> x + n) 2 ((\x n -> x + n) 3 0 ))
Next, due to a weak understanding of how the actual beta reduction would progress, I didn't understand the second-to-third step below
(\x -> (\n -> x + n)) 1 ...
(\n -> 1 + n) ...
1 + ...
That second-to-third step is lambda calculus being bizarre all right, but is at the root of why (+) and (\x n -> x + n) are the same thing. I don't think it's pure lambda calculus addition, but it (verbosely) mimics addition in recursion. I probably need to jump back into lambda calculus to really grasp why (\n -> 1 + n) turns into 1 +
My worse mental block was thinking I was looking at some sort of eager evaluation inside the parentheses first
foldr ((\x n -> x + n) 0 [1,2,3,4])
where the three arguments to foldr would interact first, i.e., 0 would be bound to the x and the list member to the n
(\x n -> x + n) 0 [1,2,3,4]
0 + 1
. . . then I didn't know what to think. Totally wrong-headed, even though, as Will Ness points out above, beta reduction is positional in binding arguments to variables. But, of course, I left out the fact that Haskell currying means we follow the expansion of foldr first.
I still don't fully understand the type definition
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
other than to comment/guess that the first a and the [a] mean a is of the type of the members of the incoming list and that the (a -> b -> b) is a prelim-microcosm of what foldr will do, i.e., it will take an argument of the incoming list's type (in our case the elements of the list?) then another object of type b and produce an object b. So the seed argument is of type b and the whole process will finally produce something of type b, also the given function argument will take an a and ultimately give back an object b which actually might be of type a as well, and in fact is in the above example with integers... IOW, I don't really have a firm grasp of the type definition...
I really don't understand code
myReverse'' :: [a] -> [a]
myReverse'' xs = foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id xs []
In case:
empty mapping to [] <---- accumulator
id mapping to fID (func id)
x is first element of xs (list)
Can i sort/change the postion of agruments "id xs []" ?
myReverse'' xs = foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) xs id []
I have read a book yesterday http://learnyouahaskell.com/higher-order-functions#lambdas
elem' :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> Bool
elem' y ys = foldl (\acc x -> if x == y then True else acc) False ys
The explanation is understandable to me.
the left fold's binary function has the accumulator as the first parameter and the current value as the second one (so \acc x -> ...)
or I can write as
elem' :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> Bool
elem' y ys = foldr (\x acc -> if x == y then True else acc) False ys
Anyone, can help/guide/explain me ?
Many thanks!
The way I like to understand these "reverse list with foldr" problems is to split it into pieces, and apply the lesson of "Foldr is made of monoids". Don't worry, this isn't as scary as it sounds.
First, let's note that reverse can be implemented this way:
my_reverse xs = foldl (flip (:)) xs []
This is the first simplification to our problem: if we can figure out how to write foldl in terms of foldr, then we can plug that solution into my_reverse to and be done with it.
Now, the standard type signature for foldr is this:
foldr :: (a -> r -> r) -> r -> [a] -> r
But the order of the arguments doesn't really matter, so let's rearrange things this way (throwing in a few implicit parentheses as well), and we'll compare it with map:
my_foldr :: (a -> (r -> r)) -> [a] -> (r -> r)
map :: (a -> b ) -> [a] -> [b]
Once you see this correspondence, it's not hard to see that we can write my_foldr this way:
my_foldr :: (a -> (r -> r)) -> [a] -> (r -> r)
my_foldr f as = compose (map f as)
where compose :: [r -> r] -> (r -> r)
compose = foldr (.) id
Think of this in the following way:
The map operation is converting each element of the list into a "step" of the transformation that we apply to the r values.
The compose function takes the resulting list of "steps" and wires them all together, using the . operator.
And now the trick is that we can write a foldl counterpart with a small change:
my_foldl :: (a -> (r -> r)) -> [a] -> (r -> r)
my_foldl f as = compose (map f as)
where compose :: [r -> r] -> (r -> r)
compose = foldr (flip (.)) id
{- Example:
>>> my_foldl (:) [1..3] []
[3,2,1]
-}
All I did was change (.) to flip (.)! And note that my_foldl is written in terms of map and foldr... but map can be rewritten in terms of foldr as well:
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f = foldr (\a bs -> f a : bs) []
So we've ended up with a solution that's different and longer than the one you're trying to understand, but hopefully it's illuminating.
The crucial thing is how this work with difference lists. Let's write out some explicit conversions:
type DList a = [a]->[a]
emptyDList :: Dlist a
emptyDList = id
fromDList :: DList a -> [a]
fromDList f = f []
myReverse'' :: ∀ a . [a] -> [a]
myReverse'' xs = fromDList $ foldr revCons emptyDList xs
where revCons :: a -> DList a -> DList a
revCons x fId empty = fId $ x : empty
Note that revCons has three arguments, though its signature actually suggests only two: difference lists are really a function type, but you can think of these functions as an abstract optimised representation for concrete lists.
If you do:
Prelude :t \x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)
You will get:
\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty) :: a -> ([a] -> t) -> [a] -> t
This function type here is equivalent to:
a -> ([a] -> t) -> ([a] -> t)
which means a function (binary function) that takes two arguments (the second argument is a function i.e. [a] -> t) and returns a function (i.e. [a] -> t).
This binary function matches the first argument that foldr takes (i.e. a -> b -> b).
In other words, foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) takes two arguments: a function and a list and returns a function.
Prelude> :t foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty))
foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty))
:: ([a] -> t) -> [a] -> [a] -> t
Take this example: foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id [1, 2, 3].
Step 1: 3 and id are passed to the anonymous binary function as arguments. A function like \empty -> id (3 : empty) is returned as the new accumulator value.
Step 2: 2 and \empty -> id (3 : empty) are passed to the anonymous binary function. And \empty -> id (3 : (2 : empty)) is returned.
Step 3: 1 and \empty -> id (3 : (2 : empty)) are passed to the anonymous binary function. And \empty -> id (3 : (2 : (1 : empty))) is returned.
So foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id [1, 2, 3] produces a function like \empty -> id (3 : (2 : (1 : empty))).
If you apply \empty -> id (3 : (2 : (1 : empty))) to [], then it will give you [3, 2, 1].
This means foldr (\x fId empty -> fId (x : empty)) id [1, 2, 3] [] produces [3, 2, 1].
The defined code is
fun foldl f e l = let
fun g(x, f'') = fn y => f''(f(x, y))
in foldr g (fn x => x) l e end
I don't understand how this works;
what is the purpose of g(x, f'')?
I also find a similar example in Haskell,
the definition is quite short
myFoldl f z xs = foldr step id xs z
where
step x g a = g (f a x)
Let's dissect the Haskell implementation of myFoldl and then take a look at the ocaml SML code. First, we'll look at some type signatures:
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -- the step function
-> b -- the initial value of the accumulator
-> [a] -- the list to fold
-> b -- the result
It should be noted that although the foldr function accepts only three arguments we are applying it two four arguments:
foldr step id xs z
However, as you can see the second argument to foldr (i.e. the inital value of the accumulator) is id which is a function of the type x -> x. Therefore, the result is also of the type x -> x. Hence, it accepts four arguments.
Similarly, the step function is now of the type a -> (x -> x) -> x -> x. Hence, it accepts three arguments instead of two. The accumulator is an endofunction (i.e. a function whose domain and codomain is the same).
Endofunctions have a special property, they are composed from left to right instead of from right to left. For example, let's compose a bunch of Int -> Int functions:
inc :: Int -> Int
inc n = n + 1
dbl :: Int -> Int
dbl n = n * 2
The normal way to compose these functions is to use the function composition operator as follows:
incDbl :: Int -> Int
incDbl = inc . dbl
The incDbl function first doubles a number and then increments it. Note that this reads from right to left.
Another way to compose them is to use continuations (denoted by k):
inc' :: (Int -> Int) -> Int -> Int
inc' k n = k (n + 1)
dbl' :: (Int -> Int) -> Int -> Int
dbl' k n = k (n * 2)
Notice that the first argument is a continuation. If we want to recover the original functions then we can do:
inc :: Int -> Int
inc = inc' id
dbl :: Int -> Int
dbl = dbl' id
However, if we want to compose them then we do it as follows:
incDbl' :: (Int -> Int) -> Int -> Int
incDbl' = dbl' . inc'
incDbl :: Int -> Int
incDbl = incDbl' id
Notice that although we are still using the dot operator to compose the functions, it now reads from left to right.
This is the key behind making foldr behave as foldl. We fold the list from right to left but instead of folding it into a value, we fold it into an endofunction which when applied to an initial accumulator value actually folds the list from left to right.
Consider our incDbl function:
incDbl = incDbl' id
= (dbl' . inc') id
= dbl' (inc' id)
Now consider the definition of foldr:
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
foldr _ acc [] = acc
foldr fun acc (y:ys) = fun y (foldr fun acc ys)
In the basis case we simply return the accumulated value. However, in the inductive case we return fun y (foldr fun acc ys). Our step function is defined as follows:
step :: a -> (x -> x) -> x -> x
step x g a = g (f a x)
Here f is the reducer function of foldl and is of the type x -> a -> x. Notice that step x is an endofunction of the type (x -> x) -> x -> x which we know can be composed left to right.
Hence the folding operation (i.e. foldr step id) on a list [y1,y2..yn] looks like:
step y1 (step y2 (... (step yn id)))
-- or
(step y1 . step y2 . {dots} . step yn) id
Each step yx is an endofunction. Hence, this is equivalent to composing the endofunctions from left to right.
When this result is applied to an initial accumulator value then the list folds from left to right. Hence, myFoldl f z xs = foldr step id xs z.
Now consider the foldl function (which is written in Standard ML and not OCaml). It is defined as:
fun foldl f e l = let fun g (x, f'') = fn y => f'' (f (x, y))
in foldr g (fn x => x) l e end
The biggest difference between the foldr functions of Haskell and SML are:
In Haskell the reducer function has the type a -> b -> b.
In SML the reducer function has the type (a, b) -> b.
Both are correct. It's only a matter of preference. In SML instead of passing two separate arguments, you pass one single tuple which contains both arguments.
Now, the similarities:
The id function in Haskell is the anonymous fn x => x function in SML.
The step function in Haskell is the function g in SML which takes a tuple containing the first two arguments.
The step function is Haskell step x g a has been split into two functions in SML g (x, f'') = fn y => f'' (f (x, y)) for more clarity.
If we rewrite the SML function to use the same names as in Haskell then we have:
fun myFoldl f z xs = let step (x, g) = fn a => g (f (a, x))
in foldr step (fn x => x) xs z end
Hence, they are exactly the same function. The expression g (x, f'') simply applies the function g to the tuple (x, f''). Here f'' is a valid identifier.
Intuition
The foldl function traverses the list head to tail while operating elements with an accumulator:
(...(a⊗x1)⊗...⊗xn-1)⊗xn
And you want to define it via a foldr:
x1⊕(x2⊕...⊕(xn⊕e)...)
Rather unintuitive. The trick is that your foldr will not produce a value, but rather a function. The list traversal will operate the elements as to produce a function that, when applied to the accumulator, performs the computation you desire.
Lets see a simple example to illustrate how this works. Consider sum foldl (+) 0 [1,2,3] = ((0+1)+2)+3. We may calculate it via foldr as follows.
foldr ⊕ [1,2,3] id
-> 1⊕(2⊕(3⊕id))
-> 1⊕(2⊕(id.(+3))
-> 1⊕(id.(+3).(+2))
-> (id.(+3).(+2).(+1))
So when we apply this function to 0 we get
(id.(+3).(+2).(+1)) 0
= ((0+1)+2)+3
We began with the identity function and successively changed it as we traversed the list, using ⊕ where,
n ⊕ g = g . (+n)
Using this intuition, it isn't hard to define a sum with an accumulator via foldr. We built the computation for a given list via foldr ⊕ id xs. Then to calculate the sum we applied it to 0, foldr ⊕ id xs 0. So we have,
foldl (+) 0 xs = foldr ⊕ id xs 0
where n ⊕ g = g . (+n)
or equivalently, denoting n ⊕ g in prefix form by (⊕) n g and noting that (⊕) n g a = (g . (+n)) a = g (a+n),
foldl (+) 0 xs = foldr ⊕ id xs 0
where (⊕) n g a = g (a+n)
Note that the ⊕ is your step function, and that you can obtain the generic result you're looking for by substituting a function f for +, and accumulator a for 0.
Next let us show that the above really is correct.
Formal derivation
Moving on to a more formal approach. It is useful, for simplicity, to be aware of the following universal property of foldr.
h [] = e
h (x:xs) = f x (h xs)
iff
h = foldr f e
This means that rather than defining foldr directly, we may instead and more simply define a function h in the form above.
We want to define such an h so that,
h xs a = foldl f a xs
or equivalently,
h xs = \a -> foldl f a xs
So lets determine h. The empty case is simple:
h [] = \a -> foldl f a []
= \a -> a
= id
The non-empty case results in:
h (x:xs) = \a -> foldl f a (x:xs)
= \a -> foldl f (f a x) xs
= \a -> h xs (f a x)
= step x (h xs) where step x g = \a -> g (f a x)
= step x (h xs) where step x g a = g (f a x)
So we conclude that,
h [] = id
h (x:xs) = step x (h xs) where step x g a = g (f a x)
satisfies h xs a = foldl f a xs
And by the universal property above (noting that the f in the universal property formula corresponds to step here, and e to id) we know that h = foldr step id. Therefore,
h = foldr step id
h xs a = foldl f a xs
-----------------------
foldl f a xs = foldr step id xs a
where step x g a = g (f a x)
For a function that maps a function to every nth element in a list:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f = zipWith ($) (drop 1 . cycle . take n $ f : repeat id)
Is it possible to implement this with foldr like ordinary map?
EDIT: In the title, changed 'folder' to 'foldr'. Autocorrect...
Here's one solution
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f as = foldr go (const []) as 1 where
go a as m
| m == n = f a : as 1
| otherwise = a : as (m+1)
This uses the "foldl as foldr" trick to pass state from the left to the right along the list as you fold. Essentially, if we read the type of foldr as (a -> r -> r) -> r -> [a] -> r then we instantiate r as Int -> [a] where the passed integer is the current number of elements we've passed without calling the function.
Yes, it can:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f xs
= foldr (\y ys -> g y : ys) []
$ zip [1..] xs
where
g (i, y) = if i `mod` n == 0 then f y else y
And since it's possible to implement zip in terms of foldr, you could get even more fold-y if you really wanted. This even works on infinite lists:
> take 20 $ mapEvery 5 (+1) $ repeat 1
[1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2]
This is what it looks like with even more foldr and inlining g:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery _ _ [] = []
mapEvery n f xs
= foldr (\(i, y) ys -> (if i `mod` n == 0 then f y else y) : ys) []
$ foldr step (const []) [1..] xs
where
step _ _ [] = []
step x zipsfn (y:ys) = (x, y) : zipsfn ys
Now, would I recommend writing it this way? Absolutely not. This is about as obfuscated as you can get while still writing "readable" code. But it does demonstrate that this is possible to use the very powerful foldr to implement relatively complex functions.
I had to implement the haskell map function to work with church lists which are defined as following:
type Churchlist t u = (t->u->u)->u->u
In lambda calculus, lists are encoded as following:
[] := λc. λn. n
[1,2,3] := λc. λn. c 1 (c 2 (c 3 n))
The sample solution of this exercise is:
mapChurch :: (t->s) -> (Churchlist t u) -> (Churchlist s u)
mapChurch f l = \c n -> l (c.f) n
I have NO idea how this solution works and I don't know how to create such a function. I have already experience with lambda calculus and church numerals, but this exercise has been a big headache for me and I have to be able to understand and solve such problems for my exam next week. Could someone please give me a good source where I could learn to solve such problems or give me a little guidance on how it works?
All lambda calculus data structures are, well, functions, because that's all there is in the lambda calculus. That means that the representation for a boolean, tuple, list, number, or anything, has to be some function that represents the active behavior of that thing.
For lists, it is a "fold". Immutable singly-linked lists are usually defined List a = Cons a (List a) | Nil, meaning the only ways you can construct a list is either Nil or Cons anElement anotherList. If you write it out in lisp-style, where c is Cons and n is Nil, then the list [1,2,3] looks like this:
(c 1 (c 2 (c 3 n)))
When you perform a fold over a list, you simply provide your own "Cons" and "Nil" to replace the list ones. In Haskell, the library function for this is foldr
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
Look familiar? Take out the [a] and you have the exact same type as Churchlist a b. Like I said, church encoding represents lists as their folding function.
So the example defines map. Notice how l is used as a function: it is the function that folds over some list, after all. \c n -> l (c.f) n basically says "replace every c with c . f and every n with n".
(c 1 (c 2 (c 3 n)))
-- replace `c` with `(c . f)`, and `n` with `n`
((c . f) 1 ((c . f) 2) ((c . f) 3 n)))
-- simplify `(foo . bar) baz` to `foo (bar baz)`
(c (f 1) (c (f 2) (c (f 3) n))
It should be apparent now that this is indeed a mapping function, because it looks just like the original, except 1 turned into (f 1), 2 to (f 2), and 3 to (f 3).
So let's start by encoding the two list constructors, using your example as reference:
[] := λc. λn. n
[1,2,3] := λc. λn. c 1 (c 2 (c 3 n))
[] is the end of list constructor, and we can lift that straight from the example. [] already has meaning in haskell, so let's call ours nil:
nil = \c n -> n
The other constructor we need takes an element and an existing list, and creates a new list. Canonically, this is called cons, with the definition:
cons x xs = \c n -> c x (xs c n)
We can check that this is consistent with the example above, since
cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 nil))) =
cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 (\c n -> n)) =
cons 1 (cons 2 (\c n -> c 3 ((\c' n' -> n') c n))) =
cons 1 (cons 2 (\c n -> c 3 n)) =
cons 1 (\c n -> c 2 ((\c' n' -> c' 3 n') c n) ) =
cons 1 (\c n -> c 2 (c 3 n)) =
\c n -> c 1 ((\c' n' -> c' 2 (c' 3 n')) c n) =
\c n -> c 1 (c 2 (c 3 n)) =
Now, consider the purpose of the map function - it is to apply the given function to each element of the list. So let's see how that works for each of the constructors.
nil has no elements, so mapChurch f nil should just be nil:
mapChurch f nil
= \c n -> nil (c.f) n
= \c n -> (\c' n' -> n') (c.f) n
= \c n -> n
= nil
cons has an element and a rest of list, so, in order for mapChurch f to work propery, it must apply f to the element and mapChurch f to rest of the list. That is, mapChurch f (cons x xs) should be the same as cons (f x) (mapChurch f xs).
mapChurch f (cons x xs)
= \c n -> (cons x xs) (c.f) n
= \c n -> (\c' n' -> c' x (xs c' n')) (c.f) n
= \c n -> (c.f) x (xs (c.f) n)
-- (c.f) x = c (f x) by definition of (.)
= \c n -> c (f x) (xs (c.f) n)
= \c n -> c (f x) ((\c' n' -> xs (c'.f) n') c n)
= \c n -> c (f x) ((mapChurch f xs) c n)
= cons (f x) (mapChurch f xs)
So since all lists are made from those two constructors, and mapChurch works on both of them as expected, mapChurch must work as expected on all lists.
Well, we can comment the Churchlist type this way to clarify it:
-- Tell me...
type Churchlist t u = (t -> u -> u) -- ...how to handle a pair
-> u -- ...and how to handle an empty list
-> u -- ...and then I'll transform a list into
-- the type you want
Note that this is intimately related to the foldr function:
foldr :: (t -> u -> u) -> u -> [t] -> u
foldr k z [] = z
foldr k z (x:xs) = k x (foldr k z xs)
foldr is a very general function that can implement all sorts of other list functions. A trivial example that will help you is implementing a list copy with foldr:
copyList :: [t] -> [t]
copyList xs = foldr (:) [] xs
Using the commented type above, foldr (:) [] means this: "if you see an empty list return the empty list, and if you see a pair return head:tailResult."
Using Churchlist, you can easily write the counterpart this way:
-- Note that the definitions of nil and cons mirror the two foldr equations!
nil :: Churchlist t u
nil = \k z -> z
cons :: t -> Churchlist t u -> Churchlist t u
cons x xs = \k z -> k x (xs k z)
copyChurchlist :: ChurchList t u -> Churchlist t u
copyChurchlist xs = xs cons nil
Now, to implement map, you just need to replace cons with a suitable function, like this:
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map f xs = foldr (\x xs' -> f x:xs') [] xs
Mapping is like copying a list, except that instead of just copying the elements verbatim you apply f to each of them.
Study all of this carefully, and you should be able to write mapChurchlist :: (t -> t') -> Churchlist t u -> Churchlist t' u on your own.
Extra exercise (easy): write these list functions in terms of foldr, and write counterparts for Churchlist:
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
append :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
-- Return first element of list that satisfies predicate, or Nothing
find :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe a
If you're feeling like tackling something harder, try writing tail for Churchlist. (Start by writing tail for [a] using foldr.)