Related
Spin off of this question. Intuitively I have understood what sequenceA does in that usecase, but not how/why it works like that.
So it all boils down to this question: how does sequenceA work in the following case?
> sequenceA [("a",1),("b",2),("c",3)]
("abc",[1,2,3])
I see that
sequenceA :: (Traversable t, Applicative f) => t (f a) -> f (t a)
so in the usecase above the Traversable is [], and the Applicative, since (,) is a binary type constructor, is (,) a, which means that the pair is taken as an applicative functor on its snd field. And this goes together the list ending up in the snd of the result. So we go from a list of pairs to a pair with a list in its second field.
But where does the "abc" come from? I mean, I know that it's the concatenation of the fst of all the pairs, but I don't know if it's via ++ or via concat of the list of the fsts. There seems to be nothing in sequenceA's signature to enforce that the fsts of the pairs can be combined together.
Still that assumption has to be used somewhere. Indeed, the following fails
sequenceA [('a',1),('b',2),('c',3)]
It uses mappend. The Applicative instance it uses looks like this:
instance Monoid a => Applicative ((,) a) where
pure x = (mempty, x)
(af, f) <*> (ax, x) = (mappend af ax, f x)
In Haskell, typeclass instances for a type can be "conditional" on the existence of other typeclass instances for parts of the type. Not all type constructors
of the form ((,) a)are instances of Applicative, but only those for which the a type has a Monoid instance.
These required constraints appear before the => in the instance's Haddocks, like this:
Monoid a => Applicative ((,) a)
Why is the Monoid instance required? For one, pure for ((,) a) needs to materialize an a value out of thin air to put in the first element of the tuple. mempty for the type a does the job.
There can be chains of required constraints that are several levels deep. For example, why does the following work?
ghci> import Datta.Function ((&)) -- flipped application
ghci> [(id :: String -> String, 2 :: Int), (\x -> x ++ x, 1)] & sequenceA & fst $ "foo"
"foofoofoo"
Here the first component is a function. As before, it must have a Monoid instance for the sequenceA to work. But when is the type a -> b a Monoid? Looking at the Haddocks, we find:
Monoid b => Monoid (a -> b)
That is, functions are Monoids when the return type (here String) is a Monoid.
Actually, there's another Monoid instance for functions available through the Endo newtype. It's common to use newtypes to select which instance to use for a given operation, although it requires some amount of wrapping and unwrapping.
I have a data type:
data Tree a = Leaf | Branch a (Tree a) (Tree a)
I want to determine, and not just for this data type, but for others such as String, if these data types are law-abiding instances of functor (https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.14.0.0/docs/Data-Functor.html). The link indicates that you can prove a type is a functor if it has a function fmap, which, given any types a and b, lets you apply any function of type (a -> b) to turn an f a into an f b, preserving the structure of f. How would I test this for my Tree data type, or String data type?
Short non-answer
Before you do any thinking yourself, try to let GHC write the instance for you:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-}
data Tree a = Leaf | Branch a (Tree a) (Tree a)
deriving (Functor)
This happens to work in this case, and then you're guaranteed to have a law-abiding instance!
Seriously, this is the way you should typically acquire Functor instances for your data types. But you should still know yourself when it makes sense!
Actual Answer
I want to determine, and not just for this data type, but for others such as String, if these data types are law-abiding instances of Functor
So, for a Functor instance, you first of all need a parametric type, i.e. a “container” that doesn't care what type you store in it. So, strictly speaking the functor shouldn't be a type at all but a type constructor or type-level function★. Practically speaking, you see that by checking if the data declaration has type variables: in case of Tree you immediately see it in your code
data Tree a = ... ✓
If you don't have the source code handy, you can ask GHCi for the kind:
Prelude> :set -XTypeInType -XNoStarIsType†
Prelude> :k Maybe
Maybe :: Type -> Type ✓
Prelude> :k String
String :: Type ✗
As you see, String does not even have a type parameter, so it can't possibly be a functor.‡
Next, you need to look how the type variable is used in the data structure. If there are multiple type parameters, all of the following applies to the last (rightmost) of them, e.g. in data Either a b = ... we'd be talking about the b parameter.
If it's not used at all (i.e. if it's a phantom type argument) then you can trivially write a law-abiding Functor instance: just don't use the mapping-function either.
data Tough a = Tough String
instance Functor Tough where
fmap _ (Tough s) = Tough s
(However perhaps you shouldn't write a functor instance in this case, because phantom arguments are often meant to be constant unique tags.)
If it's used directly as part of one of fields in a type constructor, then you can write a functor instance. The fmap-ped function should then be applied to all those values.
data Maybe a = Nothing
| Just a
instance Functor Maybe where
fmap _ Nothing = Nothing
fmap f (Just a) = Just $ f a
If it's used somewhere deeper nested in the data structure, but all the nesting is in functors itself, then it's a functor. (This also holds up if it's the same functor you're just trying to define yourself, i.e. for recursive types!)
data TwoLists a = TwoLists {listL :: [a], listR :: [a]}
instance Functor TwoLists where
fmap f (TwoLists ll lr) = TwoLists (fmap f ll) (fmap f lr)
[Advanced, probably best if you ignore this for now] if the nesting consists of not normal (covariant) functors, but of an even number of contravariant functors, then your whole type is also a covariant functor.
★Type constructors are actually a very specific sort of type-level function, in particular they're injective. Mathematically speaking, a functor doesn't need to map its objects injectively (in case of Hask, the objects are types), but in Haskell this is necessary for the type checker.
†These syntactic extensions cause GHCi to show the kind of types as Type; historically it would show * instead and that's still the default in older GHC version, but now deprecated.
‡However, String is actually a synonym for [Char] i.e. a list of characters, and list is a functor. So you can actually perform fmap over a string, but that doesn't mean your using the “string functor”: you're using the list functor, and even if you started with a string the result may not be a string (but e.g. a list of integers).
Try to write such a function. If you succeed, it is definitely a Functor. If you fail, it might not be, or maybe you are not creative enough1. For Tree, it is relatively straightforward to implement, though of course a beginner may need to ask for help.
Specializing the signature of fmap to your Tree, you want a function with this signature:
mapTree :: (a -> b) -> Tree a -> Tree b
mapTree f Leaf = _
mapTree f (Branch value left right) = _
1 Actually there are many types that you can prove are not Functors just by looking at the fields of their constructors, but since that doesn't apply to Tree we won't get into it.
Warning: this is incomplete; I'm hoping someone can fill the hole I left regarding the functoriality of fixed points. Fact 5 and my use of it feel shaky.
String is not a functor, because it has the wrong kind. String :: Type, but a functor has to have kind Type -> Type.
Before we talk about Tree, let's establish a few facts.
Constant a (for any type a) is a functor:
-- From Data.Functor.Constant
newtype Constant a b = Constant { getConstant :: a }
instance Functor (Constant a) where
fmap _ (Constant x) = Constant x
Identity is a functor
-- Adapted from Data.Functor.Identity
newtype Identity a = Identity { runIdentity :: a }
instance Functor Identity where
fmap f (Identity x) = Identity (f x)
Sum types are functors, if the components are functors.
-- From Data.Functor.Sum
data Sum f g a = InL (f a) | InR (g a)
instance (Functor f, Functor g) => Functor (Sum f g) where
fmap f (InL x) = InL (fmap f x)
fmap f (InR y) = InR (fmap f y)
Product types are functors, if the components are functors
-- From Data.Functor.Product
data Product f g a = Pair (f a) (g a)
instance (Functor f, Functor g) => Functor (Product f g) where
fmap f (Pair x y) = Pair (fmap f x) (fmap f y)
Certain fixed points are functors.
-- From Data.Functor.Fixedpoint
newtype Fix f = Fix { unFix :: f (Fix f) }
instance (Functor f, Functor t) => Functor (Fix (f t)) where
fmap g (Fix h) = Fix (fmap g (unfix h))
With these facts in mind, we will decompose our Tree type into a combination of sums and products of known functors, which will thus establish that our type is isomorphic to a functor, and therefore a functor itself.
First, Leaf is just a descriptive alias for (), and we can replace the recursive reference to Tree a with another type parameter.
-- This is slightly different from some explanations of
-- recursive types, where t would be the subtree type itself, not
-- a type constructor.
data TreeF t a = () | Branch a (t a) (t a)
Next, we get rid of a by noticing that the type () is isomorphic to Constant () a and a is isomorphic to Identity a. Further, a three-way product is isomorphic to two two-way products (i.e., (a, b, c) ~ (a, (b, c))):
-- Algebraically, T a = 1 + a*T*T
data TreeF t = Sum (Constant ()) (Product Identity (Product t t))
Facts 1-4 above allow us to conclude that TreeF t is a functor whenever t is a functor.
Finally, we can use "fact" 5 to conclude that Fix TreeF (Fix TreeF) ~ Tree is a functor.
The type of map is: (a->b) -> [a] -> [b]
while the type of the functor fmap is:
Functor f => (a+b) -> f a -> f b
I read on wikipedia that map was a polymorphic morphism while fmap was a polytypic morphism but that doesn't really clear up things for me.
So my question is: is the map function a functor?
In Haskell terms, fmap is a method in the typeclass Functor, not the functor itself. [], Maybe, ... are type constructors which instantiates the class Functor and, abusing the language, you can say that "Maybe is a functor".
In mathematical terms, a functor (or more specifically in this case, an endofunctor in the category Hask, the category of Haskell types) is composed of two mappings: the first one from a type to another and the second from an arrow (a -> b) to another (f a -> f b) which preserves the structure. In that sense, Maybe is the first arrow which maps a type to another, say Int to Maybe Int and the fmap for Maybe is the second arrow.
No, but any container that implements fmap is a functor. Lists implement fmap as well (give it a try!), so lists are functors. Map is just the implementation of fmap for lists.
Like all (->) r types map is also a functor.
(->) r is actually just a simple function type like r -> a and all functions are functors. Like other functors you may think a function like a container but you get the contained value when you apply a value. However as for a Functor instance we can not have a type with two type variables. That's why we partially apply it. Just like Either a b is done like instance Functor (Either a). Since we are interested in the return value of a function the Functor instance of a function type is a partially applied r -> a which is (->) r.
So lets see a functions Functor instance.
instance Functor ((->) r) where
fmap f g = (\x -> f (g x))
So coming back to the question, map is a function with type (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] and we can rewrite this like (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b]) so here r variable in the Functor instance stands for a -> b and a variable in the Functor instance stands for [a] -> [b]. So lets apply fmap on map like fmap ($) map. Which essentially means it will return us a function like \x -> ($) map x. Where x has to be a (a -> b) type function. So lets use <$>; the infix representation of fmap in the below example ;
Prelude> (($) <$> map) (+2) [1,2,3]
[3,4,5]
So.. yes map is a functor.
While explaining to someone what a type class X is I struggle to find good examples of data structures which are exactly X.
So, I request examples for:
A type constructor which is not a Functor.
A type constructor which is a Functor, but not Applicative.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but is not a Monad.
A type constructor which is a Monad.
I think there are plenty examples of Monad everywhere, but a good example of Monad with some relation to previous examples could complete the picture.
I look for examples which would be similar to each other, differing only in aspects important for belonging to the particular type class.
If one could manage to sneak up an example of Arrow somewhere in this hierarchy (is it between Applicative and Monad?), that would be great too!
A type constructor which is not a Functor:
newtype T a = T (a -> Int)
You can make a contravariant functor out of it, but not a (covariant) functor. Try writing fmap and you'll fail. Note that the contravariant functor version is reversed:
fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
contramap :: Contravariant f => (a -> b) -> f b -> f a
A type constructor which is a functor, but not Applicative:
I don't have a good example. There is Const, but ideally I'd like a concrete non-Monoid and I can't think of any. All types are basically numeric, enumerations, products, sums, or functions when you get down to it. You can see below pigworker and I disagreeing about whether Data.Void is a Monoid;
instance Monoid Data.Void where
mempty = undefined
mappend _ _ = undefined
mconcat _ = undefined
Since _|_ is a legal value in Haskell, and in fact the only legal value of Data.Void, this meets the Monoid rules. I am unsure what unsafeCoerce has to do with it, because your program is no longer guaranteed not to violate Haskell semantics as soon as you use any unsafe function.
See the Haskell Wiki for an article on bottom (link) or unsafe functions (link).
I wonder if it is possible to create such a type constructor using a richer type system, such as Agda or Haskell with various extensions.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but not a Monad:
newtype T a = T {multidimensional array of a}
You can make an Applicative out of it, with something like:
mkarray [(+10), (+100), id] <*> mkarray [1, 2]
== mkarray [[11, 101, 1], [12, 102, 2]]
But if you make it a monad, you could get a dimension mismatch. I suspect that examples like this are rare in practice.
A type constructor which is a Monad:
[]
About Arrows:
Asking where an Arrow lies on this hierarchy is like asking what kind of shape "red" is. Note the kind mismatch:
Functor :: * -> *
Applicative :: * -> *
Monad :: * -> *
but,
Arrow :: * -> * -> *
My style may be cramped by my phone, but here goes.
newtype Not x = Kill {kill :: x -> Void}
cannot be a Functor. If it were, we'd have
kill (fmap (const ()) (Kill id)) () :: Void
and the Moon would be made of green cheese.
Meanwhile
newtype Dead x = Oops {oops :: Void}
is a functor
instance Functor Dead where
fmap f (Oops corpse) = Oops corpse
but cannot be applicative, or we'd have
oops (pure ()) :: Void
and Green would be made of Moon cheese (which can actually happen, but only later in the evening).
(Extra note: Void, as in Data.Void is an empty datatype. If you try to use undefined to prove it's a Monoid, I'll use unsafeCoerce to prove that it isn't.)
Joyously,
newtype Boo x = Boo {boo :: Bool}
is applicative in many ways, e.g., as Dijkstra would have it,
instance Applicative Boo where
pure _ = Boo True
Boo b1 <*> Boo b2 = Boo (b1 == b2)
but it cannot be a Monad. To see why not, observe that return must be constantly Boo True or Boo False, and hence that
join . return == id
cannot possibly hold.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot
newtype Thud x = The {only :: ()}
is a Monad. Roll your own.
Plane to catch...
I believe the other answers missed some simple and common examples:
A type constructor which is a Functor but not an Applicative. A simple example is a pair:
instance Functor ((,) r) where
fmap f (x,y) = (x, f y)
But there is no way how to define its Applicative instance without imposing additional restrictions on r. In particular, there is no way how to define pure :: a -> (r, a) for an arbitrary r.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but is not a Monad. A well-known example is ZipList. (It's a newtype that wraps lists and provides different Applicative instance for them.)
fmap is defined in the usual way. But pure and <*> are defined as
pure x = ZipList (repeat x)
ZipList fs <*> ZipList xs = ZipList (zipWith id fs xs)
so pure creates an infinite list by repeating the given value, and <*> zips a list of functions with a list of values - applies i-th function to i-th element. (The standard <*> on [] produces all possible combinations of applying i-th function to j-th element.) But there is no sensible way how to define a monad (see this post).
How arrows fit into the functor/applicative/monad hierarchy?
See Idioms are oblivious, arrows are meticulous, monads are promiscuous by Sam Lindley, Philip Wadler, Jeremy Yallop. MSFP 2008. (They call applicative functors idioms.) The abstract:
We revisit the connection between three notions of computation: Moggi's monads, Hughes's arrows and McBride and Paterson's idioms (also called applicative functors). We show that idioms are equivalent to arrows that satisfy the type isomorphism A ~> B = 1 ~> (A -> B) and that monads are equivalent to arrows that satisfy the type isomorphism A ~> B = A -> (1 ~> B). Further, idioms embed into arrows and arrows embed into monads.
A good example for a type constructor which is not a functor is Set: You can't implement fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b, because without an additional constraint Ord b you can't construct f b.
I'd like to propose a more systematic approach to answering this question, and also to show examples that do not use any special tricks like the "bottom" values or infinite data types or anything like that.
When do type constructors fail to have type class instances?
In general, there are two reasons why a type constructor could fail to have an instance of a certain type class:
Cannot implement the type signatures of the required methods from the type class.
Can implement the type signatures but cannot satisfy the required laws.
Examples of the first kind are easier than those of the second kind because for the first kind, we just need to check whether one can implement a function with a given type signature, while for the second kind, we are required to prove that no implementation could possibly satisfy the laws.
Specific examples
A type constructor that cannot have a functor instance because the type cannot be implemented:
data F z a = F (a -> z)
This is a contrafunctor, not a functor, with respect to the type parameter a, because a in a contravariant position. It is impossible to implement a function with type signature (a -> b) -> F z a -> F z b.
A type constructor that is not a lawful functor even though the type signature of fmap can be implemented:
data Q a = Q(a -> Int, a)
fmap :: (a -> b) -> Q a -> Q b
fmap f (Q(g, x)) = Q(\_ -> g x, f x) -- this fails the functor laws!
The curious aspect of this example is that we can implement fmap of the correct type even though F cannot possibly be a functor because it uses a in a contravariant position. So this implementation of fmap shown above is misleading - even though it has the correct type signature (I believe this is the only possible implementation of that type signature), the functor laws are not satisfied. For example, fmap id ≠ id, because let (Q(f,_)) = fmap id (Q(read,"123")) in f "456" is 123, but let (Q(f,_)) = id (Q(read,"123")) in f "456" is 456.
In fact, F is only a profunctor, - it is neither a functor nor a contrafunctor.
A lawful functor that is not applicative because the type signature of pure cannot be implemented: take the Writer monad (a, w) and remove the constraint that w should be a monoid. It is then impossible to construct a value of type (a, w) out of a.
A functor that is not applicative because the type signature of <*> cannot be implemented: data F a = Either (Int -> a) (String -> a).
A functor that is not lawful applicative even though the type class methods can be implemented:
data P a = P ((a -> Int) -> Maybe a)
The type constructor P is a functor because it uses a only in covariant positions.
instance Functor P where
fmap :: (a -> b) -> P a -> P b
fmap fab (P pa) = P (\q -> fmap fab $ pa (q . fab))
The only possible implementation of the type signature of <*> is a function that always returns Nothing:
(<*>) :: P (a -> b) -> P a -> P b
(P pfab) <*> (P pa) = \_ -> Nothing -- fails the laws!
But this implementation does not satisfy the identity law for applicative functors.
A functor that is Applicative but not a Monad because the type signature of bind cannot be implemented.
I do not know any such examples!
A functor that is Applicative but not a Monad because laws cannot be satisfied even though the type signature of bind can be implemented.
This example has generated quite a bit of discussion, so it is safe to say that proving this example correct is not easy. But several people have verified this independently by different methods. See Is `data PoE a = Empty | Pair a a` a monad? for additional discussion.
data B a = Maybe (a, a)
deriving Functor
instance Applicative B where
pure x = Just (x, x)
b1 <*> b2 = case (b1, b2) of
(Just (x1, y1), Just (x2, y2)) -> Just((x1, x2), (y1, y2))
_ -> Nothing
It is somewhat cumbersome to prove that there is no lawful Monad instance. The reason for the non-monadic behavior is that there is no natural way of implementing bind when a function f :: a -> B b could return Nothing or Just for different values of a.
It is perhaps clearer to consider Maybe (a, a, a), which is also not a monad, and to try implementing join for that. One will find that there is no intuitively reasonable way of implementing join.
join :: Maybe (Maybe (a, a, a), Maybe (a, a, a), Maybe (a, a, a)) -> Maybe (a, a, a)
join Nothing = Nothing
join Just (Nothing, Just (x1,x2,x3), Just (y1,y2,y3)) = ???
join Just (Just (x1,x2,x3), Nothing, Just (y1,y2,y3)) = ???
-- etc.
In the cases indicated by ???, it seems clear that we cannot produce Just (z1, z2, z3) in any reasonable and symmetric manner out of six different values of type a. We could certainly choose some arbitrary subset of these six values, -- for instance, always take the first nonempty Maybe - but this would not satisfy the laws of the monad. Returning Nothing will also not satisfy the laws.
A tree-like data structure that is not a monad even though it has associativity for bind - but fails the identity laws.
The usual tree-like monad (or "a tree with functor-shaped branches") is defined as
data Tr f a = Leaf a | Branch (f (Tr f a))
This is a free monad over the functor f. The shape of the data is a tree where each branch point is a "functor-ful" of subtrees. The standard binary tree would be obtained with type f a = (a, a).
If we modify this data structure by making also the leaves in the shape of the functor f, we obtain what I call a "semimonad" - it has bind that satisfies the naturality and the associativity laws, but its pure method fails one of the identity laws. "Semimonads are semigroups in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" This is the type class Bind.
For simplicity, I define the join method instead of bind:
data Trs f a = Leaf (f a) | Branch (f (Trs f a))
join :: Trs f (Trs f a) -> Trs f a
join (Leaf ftrs) = Branch ftrs
join (Branch ftrstrs) = Branch (fmap #f join ftrstrs)
The branch grafting is standard, but the leaf grafting is non-standard and produces a Branch. This is not a problem for the associativity law but breaks one of the identity laws.
When do polynomial types have monad instances?
Neither of the functors Maybe (a, a) and Maybe (a, a, a) can be given a lawful Monad instance, although they are obviously Applicative.
These functors have no tricks - no Void or bottom anywhere, no tricky laziness/strictness, no infinite structures, and no type class constraints. The Applicative instance is completely standard. The functions return and bind can be implemented for these functors but will not satisfy the laws of the monad. In other words, these functors are not monads because a specific structure is missing (but it is not easy to understand what exactly is missing). As an example, a small change in the functor can make it into a monad: data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a is a monad. Another similar functor data P12 a = Either a (a, a) is also a monad.
Constructions for polynomial monads
In general, here are some constructions that produce lawful Monads out of polynomial types. In all these constructions, M is a monad:
type M a = Either c (w, a) where w is any monoid
type M a = m (Either c (w, a)) where m is any monad and w is any monoid
type M a = (m1 a, m2 a) where m1 and m2 are any monads
type M a = Either a (m a) where m is any monad
The first construction is WriterT w (Either c), the second construction is WriterT w (EitherT c m). The third construction is a component-wise product of monads: pure #M is defined as the component-wise product of pure #m1 and pure #m2, and join #M is defined by omitting cross-product data (e.g. m1 (m1 a, m2 a) is mapped to m1 (m1 a) by omitting the second part of the tuple):
join :: (m1 (m1 a, m2 a), m2 (m1 a, m2 a)) -> (m1 a, m2 a)
join (m1x, m2x) = (join #m1 (fmap fst m1x), join #m2 (fmap snd m2x))
The fourth construction is defined as
data M m a = Either a (m a)
instance Monad m => Monad M m where
pure x = Left x
join :: Either (M m a) (m (M m a)) -> M m a
join (Left mma) = mma
join (Right me) = Right $ join #m $ fmap #m squash me where
squash :: M m a -> m a
squash (Left x) = pure #m x
squash (Right ma) = ma
I have checked that all four constructions produce lawful monads.
I conjecture that there are no other constructions for polynomial monads. For example, the functor Maybe (Either (a, a) (a, a, a, a)) is not obtained through any of these constructions and so is not monadic. However, Either (a, a) (a, a, a) is monadic because it is isomorphic to the product of three monads a, a, and Maybe a. Also, Either (a,a) (a,a,a,a) is monadic because it is isomorphic to the product of a and Either a (a, a, a).
The four constructions shown above will allow us to obtain any sum of any number of products of any number of a's, for example Either (Either (a, a) (a, a, a, a)) (a, a, a, a, a)) and so on. All such type constructors will have (at least one) Monad instance.
It remains to be seen, of course, what use cases might exist for such monads. Another issue is that the Monad instances derived via constructions 1-4 are in general not unique. For example, the type constructor type F a = Either a (a, a) can be given a Monad instance in two ways: by construction 4 using the monad (a, a), and by construction 3 using the type isomorphism Either a (a, a) = (a, Maybe a). Again, finding use cases for these implementations is not immediately obvious.
A question remains - given an arbitrary polynomial data type, how to recognize whether it has a Monad instance. I do not know how to prove that there are no other constructions for polynomial monads. I don't think any theory exists so far to answer this question.
While explaining to someone what a type class X is I struggle to find good examples of data structures which are exactly X.
So, I request examples for:
A type constructor which is not a Functor.
A type constructor which is a Functor, but not Applicative.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but is not a Monad.
A type constructor which is a Monad.
I think there are plenty examples of Monad everywhere, but a good example of Monad with some relation to previous examples could complete the picture.
I look for examples which would be similar to each other, differing only in aspects important for belonging to the particular type class.
If one could manage to sneak up an example of Arrow somewhere in this hierarchy (is it between Applicative and Monad?), that would be great too!
A type constructor which is not a Functor:
newtype T a = T (a -> Int)
You can make a contravariant functor out of it, but not a (covariant) functor. Try writing fmap and you'll fail. Note that the contravariant functor version is reversed:
fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
contramap :: Contravariant f => (a -> b) -> f b -> f a
A type constructor which is a functor, but not Applicative:
I don't have a good example. There is Const, but ideally I'd like a concrete non-Monoid and I can't think of any. All types are basically numeric, enumerations, products, sums, or functions when you get down to it. You can see below pigworker and I disagreeing about whether Data.Void is a Monoid;
instance Monoid Data.Void where
mempty = undefined
mappend _ _ = undefined
mconcat _ = undefined
Since _|_ is a legal value in Haskell, and in fact the only legal value of Data.Void, this meets the Monoid rules. I am unsure what unsafeCoerce has to do with it, because your program is no longer guaranteed not to violate Haskell semantics as soon as you use any unsafe function.
See the Haskell Wiki for an article on bottom (link) or unsafe functions (link).
I wonder if it is possible to create such a type constructor using a richer type system, such as Agda or Haskell with various extensions.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but not a Monad:
newtype T a = T {multidimensional array of a}
You can make an Applicative out of it, with something like:
mkarray [(+10), (+100), id] <*> mkarray [1, 2]
== mkarray [[11, 101, 1], [12, 102, 2]]
But if you make it a monad, you could get a dimension mismatch. I suspect that examples like this are rare in practice.
A type constructor which is a Monad:
[]
About Arrows:
Asking where an Arrow lies on this hierarchy is like asking what kind of shape "red" is. Note the kind mismatch:
Functor :: * -> *
Applicative :: * -> *
Monad :: * -> *
but,
Arrow :: * -> * -> *
My style may be cramped by my phone, but here goes.
newtype Not x = Kill {kill :: x -> Void}
cannot be a Functor. If it were, we'd have
kill (fmap (const ()) (Kill id)) () :: Void
and the Moon would be made of green cheese.
Meanwhile
newtype Dead x = Oops {oops :: Void}
is a functor
instance Functor Dead where
fmap f (Oops corpse) = Oops corpse
but cannot be applicative, or we'd have
oops (pure ()) :: Void
and Green would be made of Moon cheese (which can actually happen, but only later in the evening).
(Extra note: Void, as in Data.Void is an empty datatype. If you try to use undefined to prove it's a Monoid, I'll use unsafeCoerce to prove that it isn't.)
Joyously,
newtype Boo x = Boo {boo :: Bool}
is applicative in many ways, e.g., as Dijkstra would have it,
instance Applicative Boo where
pure _ = Boo True
Boo b1 <*> Boo b2 = Boo (b1 == b2)
but it cannot be a Monad. To see why not, observe that return must be constantly Boo True or Boo False, and hence that
join . return == id
cannot possibly hold.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot
newtype Thud x = The {only :: ()}
is a Monad. Roll your own.
Plane to catch...
I believe the other answers missed some simple and common examples:
A type constructor which is a Functor but not an Applicative. A simple example is a pair:
instance Functor ((,) r) where
fmap f (x,y) = (x, f y)
But there is no way how to define its Applicative instance without imposing additional restrictions on r. In particular, there is no way how to define pure :: a -> (r, a) for an arbitrary r.
A type constructor which is an Applicative, but is not a Monad. A well-known example is ZipList. (It's a newtype that wraps lists and provides different Applicative instance for them.)
fmap is defined in the usual way. But pure and <*> are defined as
pure x = ZipList (repeat x)
ZipList fs <*> ZipList xs = ZipList (zipWith id fs xs)
so pure creates an infinite list by repeating the given value, and <*> zips a list of functions with a list of values - applies i-th function to i-th element. (The standard <*> on [] produces all possible combinations of applying i-th function to j-th element.) But there is no sensible way how to define a monad (see this post).
How arrows fit into the functor/applicative/monad hierarchy?
See Idioms are oblivious, arrows are meticulous, monads are promiscuous by Sam Lindley, Philip Wadler, Jeremy Yallop. MSFP 2008. (They call applicative functors idioms.) The abstract:
We revisit the connection between three notions of computation: Moggi's monads, Hughes's arrows and McBride and Paterson's idioms (also called applicative functors). We show that idioms are equivalent to arrows that satisfy the type isomorphism A ~> B = 1 ~> (A -> B) and that monads are equivalent to arrows that satisfy the type isomorphism A ~> B = A -> (1 ~> B). Further, idioms embed into arrows and arrows embed into monads.
A good example for a type constructor which is not a functor is Set: You can't implement fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b, because without an additional constraint Ord b you can't construct f b.
I'd like to propose a more systematic approach to answering this question, and also to show examples that do not use any special tricks like the "bottom" values or infinite data types or anything like that.
When do type constructors fail to have type class instances?
In general, there are two reasons why a type constructor could fail to have an instance of a certain type class:
Cannot implement the type signatures of the required methods from the type class.
Can implement the type signatures but cannot satisfy the required laws.
Examples of the first kind are easier than those of the second kind because for the first kind, we just need to check whether one can implement a function with a given type signature, while for the second kind, we are required to prove that no implementation could possibly satisfy the laws.
Specific examples
A type constructor that cannot have a functor instance because the type cannot be implemented:
data F z a = F (a -> z)
This is a contrafunctor, not a functor, with respect to the type parameter a, because a in a contravariant position. It is impossible to implement a function with type signature (a -> b) -> F z a -> F z b.
A type constructor that is not a lawful functor even though the type signature of fmap can be implemented:
data Q a = Q(a -> Int, a)
fmap :: (a -> b) -> Q a -> Q b
fmap f (Q(g, x)) = Q(\_ -> g x, f x) -- this fails the functor laws!
The curious aspect of this example is that we can implement fmap of the correct type even though F cannot possibly be a functor because it uses a in a contravariant position. So this implementation of fmap shown above is misleading - even though it has the correct type signature (I believe this is the only possible implementation of that type signature), the functor laws are not satisfied. For example, fmap id ≠ id, because let (Q(f,_)) = fmap id (Q(read,"123")) in f "456" is 123, but let (Q(f,_)) = id (Q(read,"123")) in f "456" is 456.
In fact, F is only a profunctor, - it is neither a functor nor a contrafunctor.
A lawful functor that is not applicative because the type signature of pure cannot be implemented: take the Writer monad (a, w) and remove the constraint that w should be a monoid. It is then impossible to construct a value of type (a, w) out of a.
A functor that is not applicative because the type signature of <*> cannot be implemented: data F a = Either (Int -> a) (String -> a).
A functor that is not lawful applicative even though the type class methods can be implemented:
data P a = P ((a -> Int) -> Maybe a)
The type constructor P is a functor because it uses a only in covariant positions.
instance Functor P where
fmap :: (a -> b) -> P a -> P b
fmap fab (P pa) = P (\q -> fmap fab $ pa (q . fab))
The only possible implementation of the type signature of <*> is a function that always returns Nothing:
(<*>) :: P (a -> b) -> P a -> P b
(P pfab) <*> (P pa) = \_ -> Nothing -- fails the laws!
But this implementation does not satisfy the identity law for applicative functors.
A functor that is Applicative but not a Monad because the type signature of bind cannot be implemented.
I do not know any such examples!
A functor that is Applicative but not a Monad because laws cannot be satisfied even though the type signature of bind can be implemented.
This example has generated quite a bit of discussion, so it is safe to say that proving this example correct is not easy. But several people have verified this independently by different methods. See Is `data PoE a = Empty | Pair a a` a monad? for additional discussion.
data B a = Maybe (a, a)
deriving Functor
instance Applicative B where
pure x = Just (x, x)
b1 <*> b2 = case (b1, b2) of
(Just (x1, y1), Just (x2, y2)) -> Just((x1, x2), (y1, y2))
_ -> Nothing
It is somewhat cumbersome to prove that there is no lawful Monad instance. The reason for the non-monadic behavior is that there is no natural way of implementing bind when a function f :: a -> B b could return Nothing or Just for different values of a.
It is perhaps clearer to consider Maybe (a, a, a), which is also not a monad, and to try implementing join for that. One will find that there is no intuitively reasonable way of implementing join.
join :: Maybe (Maybe (a, a, a), Maybe (a, a, a), Maybe (a, a, a)) -> Maybe (a, a, a)
join Nothing = Nothing
join Just (Nothing, Just (x1,x2,x3), Just (y1,y2,y3)) = ???
join Just (Just (x1,x2,x3), Nothing, Just (y1,y2,y3)) = ???
-- etc.
In the cases indicated by ???, it seems clear that we cannot produce Just (z1, z2, z3) in any reasonable and symmetric manner out of six different values of type a. We could certainly choose some arbitrary subset of these six values, -- for instance, always take the first nonempty Maybe - but this would not satisfy the laws of the monad. Returning Nothing will also not satisfy the laws.
A tree-like data structure that is not a monad even though it has associativity for bind - but fails the identity laws.
The usual tree-like monad (or "a tree with functor-shaped branches") is defined as
data Tr f a = Leaf a | Branch (f (Tr f a))
This is a free monad over the functor f. The shape of the data is a tree where each branch point is a "functor-ful" of subtrees. The standard binary tree would be obtained with type f a = (a, a).
If we modify this data structure by making also the leaves in the shape of the functor f, we obtain what I call a "semimonad" - it has bind that satisfies the naturality and the associativity laws, but its pure method fails one of the identity laws. "Semimonads are semigroups in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" This is the type class Bind.
For simplicity, I define the join method instead of bind:
data Trs f a = Leaf (f a) | Branch (f (Trs f a))
join :: Trs f (Trs f a) -> Trs f a
join (Leaf ftrs) = Branch ftrs
join (Branch ftrstrs) = Branch (fmap #f join ftrstrs)
The branch grafting is standard, but the leaf grafting is non-standard and produces a Branch. This is not a problem for the associativity law but breaks one of the identity laws.
When do polynomial types have monad instances?
Neither of the functors Maybe (a, a) and Maybe (a, a, a) can be given a lawful Monad instance, although they are obviously Applicative.
These functors have no tricks - no Void or bottom anywhere, no tricky laziness/strictness, no infinite structures, and no type class constraints. The Applicative instance is completely standard. The functions return and bind can be implemented for these functors but will not satisfy the laws of the monad. In other words, these functors are not monads because a specific structure is missing (but it is not easy to understand what exactly is missing). As an example, a small change in the functor can make it into a monad: data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a is a monad. Another similar functor data P12 a = Either a (a, a) is also a monad.
Constructions for polynomial monads
In general, here are some constructions that produce lawful Monads out of polynomial types. In all these constructions, M is a monad:
type M a = Either c (w, a) where w is any monoid
type M a = m (Either c (w, a)) where m is any monad and w is any monoid
type M a = (m1 a, m2 a) where m1 and m2 are any monads
type M a = Either a (m a) where m is any monad
The first construction is WriterT w (Either c), the second construction is WriterT w (EitherT c m). The third construction is a component-wise product of monads: pure #M is defined as the component-wise product of pure #m1 and pure #m2, and join #M is defined by omitting cross-product data (e.g. m1 (m1 a, m2 a) is mapped to m1 (m1 a) by omitting the second part of the tuple):
join :: (m1 (m1 a, m2 a), m2 (m1 a, m2 a)) -> (m1 a, m2 a)
join (m1x, m2x) = (join #m1 (fmap fst m1x), join #m2 (fmap snd m2x))
The fourth construction is defined as
data M m a = Either a (m a)
instance Monad m => Monad M m where
pure x = Left x
join :: Either (M m a) (m (M m a)) -> M m a
join (Left mma) = mma
join (Right me) = Right $ join #m $ fmap #m squash me where
squash :: M m a -> m a
squash (Left x) = pure #m x
squash (Right ma) = ma
I have checked that all four constructions produce lawful monads.
I conjecture that there are no other constructions for polynomial monads. For example, the functor Maybe (Either (a, a) (a, a, a, a)) is not obtained through any of these constructions and so is not monadic. However, Either (a, a) (a, a, a) is monadic because it is isomorphic to the product of three monads a, a, and Maybe a. Also, Either (a,a) (a,a,a,a) is monadic because it is isomorphic to the product of a and Either a (a, a, a).
The four constructions shown above will allow us to obtain any sum of any number of products of any number of a's, for example Either (Either (a, a) (a, a, a, a)) (a, a, a, a, a)) and so on. All such type constructors will have (at least one) Monad instance.
It remains to be seen, of course, what use cases might exist for such monads. Another issue is that the Monad instances derived via constructions 1-4 are in general not unique. For example, the type constructor type F a = Either a (a, a) can be given a Monad instance in two ways: by construction 4 using the monad (a, a), and by construction 3 using the type isomorphism Either a (a, a) = (a, Maybe a). Again, finding use cases for these implementations is not immediately obvious.
A question remains - given an arbitrary polynomial data type, how to recognize whether it has a Monad instance. I do not know how to prove that there are no other constructions for polynomial monads. I don't think any theory exists so far to answer this question.